Your opinion on this gun law?

[esq_stu]

And another thing, try and prove unreasonableness beyond a reasonable doubt. It's pretty hard to do. Criminal negligence already exists as a crime on the books. Also tough to prove.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Great idea, Dave. In fact I'd like to see that kind of law applied to every situation in which people could be held responsible for the actions of other people.

Love it, Robert...

What if the thief stole a defective condom? Are you ready for the child support yet?

How about scented love oil?


.... nevermind

 

[Liko81]

I would support this law with modifications.

1) A home alarm combined with reasonable concealment of unlocked firearms (placed so they would not be in what a police officer would be able to call "plain sight") qualifies as a "reasonable step" to secure the firearms within the home, and is thus a substitute for an external lock on the gun.
2) Second, the rule would not apply to guns you commonly use for home defense, when you are inside the walls of the house. In that situation, YOU are a reasonable step to secure the firearm, and to secure the firearm(s) under those circumstances you must be able to use at least one of them.
3) Lastly, a firearm carried on your person, in your hand, or otherwise placed so it is within easy reach is by definition secured.

It's very simple; secure the guns you will not use to use once you will not be in a situation where you would conceivably use them (as in you are going to work and leaving your HD shotgun under the bed, or your handgun if you do not carry). Free the guns for use once you are in a situation where you could concievably have need of them. Secured guns should either take an inordinate amount of time to steal, or should reduce what would be a relatively short time to an inordinate amount of time by immediately alerting everyone on the block that someone's trying to steal from you. If you fail to take these steps, you are, however indirectly, aiding and abetting the commission of a crime by someone who steals them, or negligently contributing to a dangerous home environment for children in your home.

I would not go so far as to hold the gun owner liable as an accomplice or accessory, but just as leaving your car unlocked with the keys in it nets you a hefty fine in many municipalities, so too should an unsecured firearm. These are simple, commonsense steps that should be taken by every gun owner whether legally required or not, and to not follow them is simple laziness at best, criminal negligence at worst.

 

[jon_in_wv]

We don't have to worry about people taking away our rights when do gooders are more than happy to GIVE them away.

I am not responsible for the criminal behavior of another person. "Reasonable" laws that place the responsibility on ME???? No such thing.

 

[Drysdale]

Would you support a law saying that if a gun owner fails to take reasonable steps to secure a firearm (e.g., trigger/cable lock, gun safe) and someone to whom the owner allowed access uses the gun to commit a crime (possibly including suicide), the owner would be prosecuted?

Note that this wouldn't require all guns to be locked. If you never have children or untrusted visitors in your house, or if you have educated your children and trust them to never use your guns unsupervised, you could leave them unlocked.

Subsequent clarification: Also note that this law would apply only to those to whom the owner had allowed access. It's not applicable if a secured gun is stolen.

(If this has been discussed before, please just refer me to the thread.)

Would you support a law saying that if a car owner fails to take reasonable steps to secure an automobile (e.g., steering wheel lock, alarm system with engine lockdown) and someone to whom the owner allowed access uses the car to commit a crime (possibly including suicide), the owner would be prosecuted?

 

[Robert Hairless]

Ladies and Gentlemen, they ALWAYS look in the shoebox in the closet. If you're taking the time to hide the gun then you acknowledge that someone out there wants to steal it. If you think someone will steal it then you need to secure it.

Ahh, now you see why I hide my good shoes in a gun safe and wrap trigger locks around the shoes. I don't want anyone stealing those shoes.

Back to Earth for a few moments.

The thinking behind the original post demonstrates the effectiveness of gun control. It has shaped everyone's thinking, including the thinking of gun owners. Gun owners have gone far, far over the edge without realizing it.

Firearms have always been potentially dangerous. That realization is not original to Sarah Brady and other advocates of gun control. Even my rather stupid generation knew it, and I'd bet that it didn't take the first person to fire a gun too long to figure it out either.

What is original to Mrs. Brady and to you is a fixation on trigger locks, gun safes, and other ways to neutralize firearms by making them as useless as possible. In reality trigger locks are easily defeated and most of the gun safes bought by gun owners can be peeled open within a very few minutes. The smaller gun safes are easier: instead of opening the safe, a thief with even half a mind will take it with him and the guns inside too.

The only way to have an absolutely safe gun is to not have a gun. The only way to be absolutely, positively, undoubtedly sure that your kids and the neighbors' can't possibly be harmed by a gun is to keep the kids away from all guns forever. And the only sure way to prevent thieves from stealing your guns is to not own guns at all. The Bradys of the world will applaud you for coming around to their thinking. Then you can go after kids who draw pictures of guns or say the word "gun" and we all will live happily ever after.

That's what Sarah Brady and her friends want and that's the direction which many gun owners pursue. They think they're being prudent and play a strange game of oneupmanship with a Holier Than Thou attitude. "I've put three trigger locks on every gun," says one. "That's not really safe. I've disassembled all my guns, put the parts in different safes, and have attack dogs guarding them," says another. "Neither of you really cares about your kids or meets your responsibilities. What I do is strip the guns, separate the parts, fill the barrels with lead, and ship them to friends all over the world," says the third.

I, and I think everyone in my generation, never even heard of trigger locks. Nobody I knew owned a gun safe. I'm not sure they even existed. My kids were raised with guns in the house. The guns did not have trigger locks and we did not own a gun safe. Our guns were in closets and drawers. We did not childproof the world. We worldproofed the children. It worked for us. It also worked for our parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and all the way back in time.

I admit that all parents before today's crop were awful, uncaring, unenlightened, ill educated, and bone stupid in comparison with parents today. Fortunately all our our kids were even stupider than we were. They grew to be successful, competent, happy adults with no noticeable twitches or personality disorders, and not one of them looks down the barrel of a gun and pulls the trigger to see whether it's loaded. None of our kids shot up a school or church or mall, stuck up a bank or convenience store, sold dope, kidnapped anyone at all, or tried to murder us. From time to time, especially around age 15, they did try to drive us nuts but that didn't have anything to do with guns. It was mostly sex, I think, and I wish someone had told me about trigger locks then.

As for security, keep in mind the utter stupidity of every generation before yours. What we did was to take reasonable measures to secure our homes and their contents. We did nutty things like have good doors, windows, locks, and lighting, and we locked the doors and windows when we left the house, went to sleep, or were away from home. Some of us even put good alarm systems on our homes. Our rather odd thinking was that we wanted to make it hard for burglars to enter but that we couldn't turn our homes into prisons with us as the inmates. And we didn't want to do that anyway. We also did not think that we owned the only guns in the world or even in the city. And we certainly did not think that we were responsible if a criminal broke into our homes despite our reasonable precautions. We never considered the possibility of setting attack dogs to roam our property and consume bad guys or putting barbed wire around our homes. These are new ideas from a much more enlightened generation committed to living responsible lives.

We were irresponsible idiots. You're much smarter and more conscientious. You know what never occurred to us: that it was your fault if a criminal broke into your home and stole your goods. If so, the original poster might have the right idea. If you become the victim of a crime, perhaps it's right that you should be arrested and tried for that crime. The principle, I suppose, is that you were at fault for not taking adequate measures to prevent the crime. Since the criminal was able to victimize you, his success is compelling evidence that you just didn't do enough.

Someone smarter than I will have to figure out how to incarcerate your body if the crime you didn't prevent was your own murder. I don't suppose that there would be much trouble in jailing women who didn't prevent their own rapes, so that's probably not worth considering.

 

[Blackbeard]

Why limit it to guns? How about if you lend your car to someone and he robs a liquor store with it? What if your husband sticks up a gas station while wearing your nylons over his head?

You can't define an act as a crime if it only becomes a crime based on future events. You'd be punishing people for not being able to predict the future. Therefore, the act of allowing anyone else access to a weapon would be the crime, whether or not anyone else used it to kill someone.

I think the people feel robbed because these mass shooters kill themselves before we can bring them to justice. I think they're looking for someone to punish.

 

[crebralfix]

Whatever happened to: It's my property, not yours...leave it alone.

Also: It's my house, the door is locked and I didn't invite you in. How is it that I'm responsible for a burgler's actions when they steal the gun and use it?

Also: It's my property and I didn't give it to you. I didn't let you into my car and certainly didn't ask you to break the lock. Why is it my problem that the person committed murder with the weapon they stole by having to go through a barrier?

 

[bigdaddyb]

I'm fine with it, so long as the same measures are required for every other 'dangerous' piece of portable property that people own (cars, atv's, boats, chainsaws, weed eaters, knives, hammers, wrenches, lumber, etc.)

My guns should not be placed under different legal considerations from my other 'dangerous' possessions.

I oppose ANY law that attempts to place any sort of different 'moral value' on my firearms. They are inanimate objects and should be considered as such.

 

[1911RjB]

I really don't like this law, i see some point to it. In a select few cases, but at the same time the people that would use your gun for sucide or people you trust that would steel it... IE family member, would probly know how to get in you safe, or where you keep your keys, and if they don't then probably could figure it out.. so know i have to lock my guns up and tell no one, not even my wife, who may have to use them to protect her self how to get at them, incase she goes nuts and shoots or robs a store, cuz i don't want to go to jail...

also if some one was going to use my gun to kill them self. and couldn't get to it because it was locked up, will more then likely use some other means of ending there life.

To me this law has some bearing on helping children keep there hands off guns, but they would probly fall under the, are not allowed access people anyway. so this law is pointless.

 

[Colonel]

Has someone been leaving garbage out in the yard lately?

Seems like there are more trolls and TeenyBombers here all the time...

PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS OR TEENYBOMBERS

 

[ashtxsniper]

No way.

 

[Steve499]

'Twould appear DaveBeal's question has been answered.

 

[19-3Ben]

Colonel- what makes you assume he's a troll. Look at his other posts. He is new to guns, and has not yet decide to jump all the way into the deep end of the pool.
There is nothing wrong with trying to test us and figure out our arguments and reasoning before someone makes up his mind about how much of the kool-aid he wants to drink.
He is not a troll. He's a good guy with honest questions.

 

[Liko81]

I would support this law with modifications. Let's, just for the sake of argument, codify this proposed law in quasi-legislative terms, as a rough draft of a bill might be.

---------------------------------------------------------------
An Act for the Reasonable Requirement Of Securement of Firearm Weapons

This Act may be referred to as the "Firearm Lock-Up Act".

It shall be unlawful and prohibited for the owner of a firearm or any authorized person to store a firearm which is not secured in any home, building, or other land accessible to that person or to authorized persons.

An "authorized person" is defined as a person not prohibited by law from owning or possessing a firearm, to whom the registered legal owner of the firearm in question has given their implied or express permission for the person to possess and use the firearm. An "authorized person" cannot be someone legally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, nor can it be a person who, even if granted permission, could not reasonably be expected to control the firearm during normal use.

To "store" a firearm is defined as to keep the firearm in a building or space habitually or for an extended period of time during which the firearm is not under direct supervision or control of the owner or an authorized person.

A firearm is defined as "secured" if any one of the following conditions are met:
1) An external or internal locking mechanism that meets [applicable requirements for the jurisdiction] is placed on or integrated into the firearm and placed in a locked state at the time in question, such that normal operation of the firearm with the lock in place is impossible. The locking mechanism must incorporate a unique physical key or combination to enable or disable the lock, and must enable or disable only that lock. This condition is not met if the physical key or combination required to disable the lock is made accessible to non-authorized persons by negligence or conscious action/inaction.
2) The firearm is placed in a gun safe or other lockable vault that meets [applicable requirements for the jurisdiction] and the vault is in a locked state at the time in question. The locking mechanism of the safe must incorporate a unique physical key or combination that enables or disables the lock, and the key or combination must enable or disable only that lock. This condition is not met if the physical key or combination required to disable the lock is made accessible to non-authorized persons by negligence or conscious action/inaction.
3) The firearm is located in a concealed location (defined as a place not meeting the legal definition of "in plain sight" as it refers to searches by law enforcement officials) in a building or space that is protected by a suitable alarm system which is armed at the time in question. A suitable alarm system is one that can only be normally enabled or disabled by the firearm owner or authorized person, that emits a noise upon being triggered that is easily noticeable by persons located up to 1000ft away, and that is monitored and maintained by an alarm monitoring service in good standing in [the applicable jurisdiction]; such an alarm would by its intended operation be detrimental to a non-authorized person's search for a firearm in a concealed location within the building or space.
4) A firearm that is in the hands of, carried on the person of, or placed such that it is always within easy reach of the owner or an authorized person. A firearm meeting this condition is considered "secured" regardless of failure to meet any other condition, or meets a condition defining an unsecured firearm, with the following exception:
I - a firearm otherwise meeting only Condition (4) that comes into the possession of a non-authorized person through negligence, inattentiveness, and/or conscious action/inaction on the part of an authorized person does not meet this condition at any time before or during its possession by a non-authorized person.
5) A firearm that is stored with the intention of being used by the owner or authorized persons for home or personal defense, with the following exceptions:
I - Condition (5) is not met during any time when the owner or an authorized person does not occupy the building or space in which the firearm is located. Further, a firearm does not meet this condition if the only persons occupying the space cannot be reasonably expected to control the weapon during normal use and thus do not meet the criteria for an "authorized person" as applies to that weapon, even if one or more of those persons do meet the criteria for an "authorized person" relating to other firearms stored in the building or space.
II - Condition (5) is not met in the case of a firearm that, as specifically defined by [the legislating body] or in the opinion of [applicable courts], is not suitable for home defense. Such firearms may include antique/curio weapons, firearms designed to hold a single shot, firearms designed primarily for hunting/sporting and are decided to have few or no design features other than status as a firearm that facilitate use in home or personal defense, or other firearms of a type or caliber that are defined by [legislature] or decided by a court of law applicable to the laws of [jurisdiction] to be insufficient for defense purposes. In making such a decision in a court of law, the burden of proof shall be placed on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a weapon of such type and caliber would be insufficient for any defense purpose.

Notwithstanding any of the above, excepting Condition 4 above which applies regardless of any conflicting condition, a firearm is considered "unsecured" if any of the following conditions apply:
A) The firearm is stored in a building or space defined or decided to be readily accessible to the general public, UNLESS Condition 2 defining a secured firearm is met (the firearm is kept in a safe or other locking compartment), AND the gun safe or compartment used to secure the gun is accessible only by authorized persons.
B) The firearm is stored in a building or space which is the registered home or work address of a non-authorized person, or otherwise a place in which non-authorized persons, live, sleep, and/or spend a significant amount of time, UNLESS Conditions 1 and/or 2 defining a secured firearm are met, OR if both of the following are true:
I - the non-authorized persons are not reasonably able to access a firearm that is located in a concealed position AND
II - the non-authorized persons are reasonably incapable of bringing the firearm from its stored state to a state of readiness to fire (such as manipulating the action to place a cartridge in the chamber).
Examples of such persons are young children and physically disabled persons, and may include others as specified or decided.
C) The firearm is stored in a building or space which a non-authorized person has access who is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm due to disqualifying criminal conviction, adjudication of insanity, or commitment to a mental institution, UNLESS Condition 2 defining a secure firearm is met. If both Condition B and C defining an usecured weapon are met, such as in the case of a juvenile offender, Condition C is to be given priority, and no exception or additional means of security allowed under Condition B is to be considered excepting Condition 4 defining a secure firearm (a firearm within easy reach of an authorized person).

---------------------------------------------------------------

It's very simple; lock the guns you will not use once you will not be in a situation where you would conceivably use them (as in you are leaving the house and leaving your HD guns behind). Unlock the guns once you could concievably have need of them. Secured guns are those within your reach or easy access while you are there (and which you therefore have the responsibility to retain possession of), should take an inordinate amount of time to steal, or should reduce what would be a relatively short time to an inordinate amount of time by immediately alerting everyone on the block that a break-in has occurred. If you fail to take these steps, you are, however indirectly, aiding and abetting the commission of a crime by someone who steals them, or negligently contributing to a dangerous home environment for children in your home.

I would not go so far as to hold the gun owner liable as an accomplice or accessory, but just as leaving your car unlocked with the keys in it nets you a hefty fine in many municipalities, so too should an unsecured firearm. These are simple, commonsense steps that should be taken by every gun owner whether legally required or not, and to not follow them is simple laziness at best, criminal negligence at worst.

 

[ptmmatssc]

A home alarm combined with reasonable concealment of unlocked firearms (placed so they would not be in what a police officer would be able to call "plain sight") qualifies as a "reasonable step" to secure the firearms within the home, and is thus a substitute for an external lock on the gun.

The fact that the doors are locked is the only "reasonable step" one needs to take . My recent encounter with a home burglary (they didn't take any guns) didn't change my mind as to WHO is responsible if one of my guns is stolen and used in a crime . THEY committed a crime by forcefully entering my home , so anything after that is on them .

I, and I think everyone in my generation, never even heard of trigger locks. Nobody I knew owned a gun safe. I'm not sure they even existed. My kids were raised with guns in the house. The guns did not have trigger locks and we did not own a gun safe. Our guns were in closets and drawers. We did not childproof the world. We worldproofed the children. It worked for us. It also worked for our parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and all the way back in time.

Sounds like I was raised as well as my parents , and how I am now raising my daughter . Matter of fact , seems to have worked out well for my generation and the ones before it .

 

[MaddSkillz]

Absolutely not. Locking up weapons can be a hinderance in a time of need.

 

[ptmmatssc]

but just as leaving your car unlocked with the keys in it nets you a hefty fine in many municipalities, so too should an unsecured firearm.

Big difference. Apples and oranges . A locked house does not equate to an unlocked car with keys in it .

And who will enforce this new law? Will there now be "spot inspections"?

I have a better idea . Let's put the blame on the guy committing the crime and punish THEM !

Man , what next , lock up my steak knives , baseball bats, hatchets, etc etc .

 

[Autolycus]

Nope. I dont think you should be held responsible for the actions of another.

 

[Liko81]

And who will enforce this new law? Will there now be "spot inspections"?

Just like any law you break, you can break the law all you want until you are caught when your breaking the law creates a problem. When you get in an accident because you made a left turn on red, you're ticketed for running a red or for failure to yield. The fact that the guy you hit was speeding or even drunk does not negate your breaking the law. Leaving the keys in your car means the car can easily be used by anyone who steals it (even if unlocked, not leaving the key in the car makes it more difficult to steal the car); the fact that it's still theft doesn't negate your breaking the law by leaving it unlocked with the keys in. But, if you didn't get in an accident and the cop didn't see it, then no harm, no foul.

The same logic applies; you can leave your guns unsecured (let's define it quite simply as able to be used by anyone who picks them up). You are then running the risk that someone breaking in will immediately be able to use your firearm. Yeah, they broke in and in doing so committed a crime. That does not negate your responsibility to lock your damn guns up, and if it were a law, you'd be ticketed (if not summoned to court) for failure to secure your guns. When the guy who broke in was caught, he'd face his punishment too.

Your comparison of a locked house to an unlocked car with the keys in is invalid on its face; they are two different levels of security. A thief can break a window in a house just as easily as a car; the difference is that if the key is in the ignition, even if the door is locked, that's all the thief HAS to do in order to steal the car. Same thing with your house; they break the sliding glass door and waltz out with your gun, which can immediately be used. But if you lock the car and take the key with you, they not only have to get through the door but hotwire the ignition. If you lock your house door AND your guns, they have two levels to get through, one of which is far harder to overcome than simply breaking a window.

Nope. I dont think you should be held responsible for the actions of another.

You aren't. You're being held responsible for your failure to properly secure dangerous property; Just like your cars, your guns are highly valuable, hard to trace once stolen (cars are chopped up, guns get the serials filed off) and very dangerous in the hands of someone who doesn't care about them. If a terrorist set off a bio-agent "dirty bomb" in downtown NY that infected thousands with MRSA, AIDS or worse, you'd be screaming for someone to trace the disease to the research center that let the terrorist get hold of it. Likewise, the first question asked after a shooting is "where'd he get the gun?". Robert Hawkins stole an unsecured AK copy from his dad. If the dad had put a lock on it and kept the key away from his four-time convict son, he wouldn't have been able to use that gun and if he were able to carry out his plan at all, the public would be more sympathetic to the parents; "they locked up their guns, so he stole someone else's and wasn't seen before he started killing, there was nothing more the parents could have done". Instead it's "why didn't this @$$wipe lock his guns up, why didn't the mother say anything; they're responsible for this tragedy".

 

[MaddSkillz]

Yeah, all this country needs is more of our gun rights legislated away.

What forum is this? Am I in the wrong place?

 

[Blackfork]

They WON'T ENFORCE IT.....

.......at first. But then as other regulations come on line, or modifications, perhaps you'll have to have it inspected or submit the plans...and THEN you'll be fined or have your guns confiscated. To the nanny state and gun grabbers, even a sideways step is still a step toward utopia.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Yes, let's legislate more idiot laws. Then we can "adjust" them so, let's say, to keep the danger out of the home, you can keep your weapons at the gun club. Then, if you are a target shooter, you can be required to dispose of any weapon which is not a .22, since all you do is target shoot. Oh, if you are a hunter, all you need is a shotgun and a few rounds of ammo, and we will provide you with those.

If the above doesn't seem realistic, see Britain (used to be Great). All the above and more.

Creeping incrementalism. Anytime I hear the words "common sense" or "for the children" I answer with "pound sand!" (when I am in a tolerant mood... I am a bit more animated at other times)

 

[ptmmatssc]

The fact that the guy you hit was speeding or even drunk does not negate your breaking the law.

Actually , here in my state , a drunk driver is automatically at fault because he should not have been on the road in the first place . Can cite cases if needed

Let me get this straight . If you leave your car unlocked, no keys, and someone steals it and commits a crime , your not at fault , even though there is just one level of security . But if someone breaks into my locked house , steals my guns, commits a crime , then I'm responsible? Again , one level of security .

It's simple . Once a person has breached any locked entity THEY are responsible for actions taken after the crime . Should the company that owned the pipe that was used to beat my aunt to death be held responsible for not locking it up? Should anyone but the party committing the crime be held responsible for breaking and entering, stealing , then using the stolen property for another crime?

I'll go one even better . Should I be held responsible for someone stealing a can of gas from my shed (unlocked) then burning down a house killing all the occupants?

Put responsibility for the crime where it belongs .

 

[Liko81]

Put responsibility for the crime where it belongs.

Did I ever say anything that sounded like "the guy who broke in and stole your guns should walk away scot free"?

I'm talking about your responsibility as a gun owner, or as any property owner, to take every reasonable precaution to protect that property, especially when its misuse can kill. As Gunny said (from FMJ), "if it weren't for ****-ups like you there'd be no thievery in this world!". I'm not saying lock up your gas can, but you also shouldn't leave it full on your driveway overnight. Putting it in your garage is a reasonable precaution; if it's stolen from there, you did no more or less than millions of homeowners who own a lawn mower do, and you bear no responsibility for the action. If you left it out on your front porch, you may not be criminally liable, but yes, you are partially to blame for any arson that takes place after your gas can is stolen, because not only was it easy to steal, it was a target of opportunity. If there's a rash of gas can thefts, the police start telling people to lock their garages or take steps to conceal their gas cans so they're not as easy to take.

Any security measure, ANY security measure, is defeatable, solely on the principle that those who need access have it, therefore even if security can't be bypassed any other way than by having access, those who do not have access can somehow get it. Therefore, locks, codes, concealment, alarms, guards, and other security measures protect only by discouraging theft; the potential gain isn't worth what it would take to defeat the security or the risk and penalty of failure. That doesn't mean they aren't valuable deterrents, and you as a responsible, law-abiding citizen must realize that not everyone is as upstanding as you, and therefore you should take what you consider to be reasonable steps to protect your belongings. It's why you own a gun in the first place. You may cover your @$$ with the knowledge that you locked your door and your guns were in a closed closet, but with no alarm and no gun locks Sparky has your guns in 5 minutes, well before the police get there. You may not be criminally liable, but you now will have to live the rest of your life knowing the fact that by failing to properly secure it, you allowed a criminal to use your gun to kill someone, someone who, just maybe, would still be alive if the criminal who broke in weren't able to get your gun. Even if the criminal would probably have used another gun, it wouldn't have been YOUR gun, and if enough people act to make sure it's not THEIR gun, it won't be anybody's. By owning a gun, you, as many gun owners crow, have taken it upon yourself to defend your family and your life. You must therefore take it upon yourself to also protect your property, and the lives of nameless others, by protecting your gun. You have that responsibility, and if you refuse to shoulder it, it will be forced upon you, like the many other regulations and laws imposed upon us as lawful gun owners. Those regulations are in place not because the gun-haters want to remove guns from society, but because gun owners quite simply bleat the party line, "stay the course", whenever a gun owner/gun possessor (whether that gun was owned legally or otherwise) breaks the rules. When a kid steals a gun and kills 8 people, and the NRA says "new regulations won't solve the problem", antis say "well, come up with a way to control your constituents or we will".

If we don't WANT more gun control, we as gun owners have to prove we don't NEED it. If we want guns out of the hands of criminals without the antis disarming the entire country, we need to ensure that the guns we have don't end up in criminals' hands, and that means keeping them on our hips and in our homes through every means available to us: safes, locks, alarm systems, nosy but gun-friendly neighbors, whatever. We can't throw up our hands and say "my door was locked, they broke a window, it's not my fault my gun was stolen". It simply isn't logical, and even the antis you call brainless can see an obvious solution: LOCK UP YOUR GUNS. In most states, every weapon that can accept a bolt lock (including virtually all autoloaders and revolvers, most pump and semi-auto shotguns, and most detatchable magazine-fed rifles) is sold with one. You have no excuse; if you can't or won't lock up the guns that are not on your person or within your easy reach, you are not worthy of the rights you have and you deserve to have them taken from you. I put the breech lock in my 9mm every morning before hiding it, and remove it at night, when the gun doesn't leave my immediate person. The key is kept on the same keyring as my housekeys, and I leave it in the lock, so there's no way I leave my house without putting the lock back in. I obey the unwritten rule; if others won't, we will all very quickly find it has become a written rule, and believe me: THAT'S THE BEST POSSIBLE SCENARIO.