Law requires guns be locked up at home

[AggieDave 6]

Ok, I can't take it, here are the UCR numbers. An explanation, manslaughter is how the UCR codes a non-intended death. UCR reporting is by the crime, solved or not, accidental or not, it is a very big deal if a department mis-codes their crimes.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/7c1c0ccc-1c89-4e2c-82ca-963ecce38d7a/1996_fwd_FA_by_county.aspx

Looks like from 1996-2008 there was 1 manslaughter involving a firearm in Miama-Dade County. That isn't just children, that isn't just adults, that is including every single soul in those 8 years.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

existence of loaded guns in the house that discourage home invasion robberies

Nope, the existence of loaded guns in my house lessen the chances of a successful home invasion robbery. If you don't want a gun in your house-don't have one.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Skyrad 0]

I'm not going to bother to go any futher with this thread, its pointless. I enjoy shooting and responsible ownership of firearms but recognise that to many americans its all about the macho bollocks that goes with the image of gun ownership.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

In countries where no such right to self defense exists, that style of armed robbery is more common than we see.

I call BS, Evidence please

link

What happens in a burglary?
• In a quarter of burglaries someone is at home and aware of what is happening.
• In 20% of cases the victim sees the offender.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

but recognise that to many americans its all about the macho bollocks that goes with the image of gun ownership.

Bullshit - but thanks for playing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My figures are based on a peer reviewed scientific paper in a respected medical journal.

Where is that study did it say that 128 children were accidentally killed?

Oh right, it didn't.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

existence of loaded guns in the house that discourage home invasion robberies

Nope, the existence of loaded guns in my house lessen the chances of a successful home invasion robbery. If you don't want a gun in your house-don't have one.

The potential for loaded guns in any neighboring house reduces the chances for any home invastion, successful or unsuccessful.

Criminals switch to non-confrontational crimes when they think their victims may be armed and become more bold when that's less likely.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I'm not going to bother to go any futher with this thread, its pointless. I enjoy shooting and responsible ownership of firearms but recognise that to many americans its all about the macho bollocks that goes with the image of gun ownership.

For many Americans (myself included) it's not about personal defense, or home invasion scenarios, and it's not about those macho bollocks of yours.

The reason that the citizens here retain the right to arm themselves is because it acts as the final check on government power. We learned that the hard way, a couple of hundred years ago, when our government (at least the one we had at the time) attempted to confiscate weapons from the citizenry.

Quite honestly, it matters not one whit to me if the presence of firearms in our society makes it more dangerous, less dangerous, or has no effect on daily safety, home invasion or violent crime. The second amendment isn't about personal defense from criminals, it's even less about hunting, and it's not even remotely about target shooting.

I do not wish to give up essential freedom for some temporary security or peace of mind.

If you could show that somehow the right to free speech threatened our children with harm, I'd still be in favor of maintaining it, despite the increased danger.

If Dick Cheney could show that abrogating fundamental rights makes our nation safer from attack, I'd _still_ be against abrogating those rights. When Barack Obushma talks about our safety being his primary concern, and promises that he can keep us safe without breaching our rights, it makes me feel ill. It's not about keeping us "safe". It's about the fundamental fabric of our social contract.

Fundamental rights are more important than temporary safety.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Skyrad 0]

Ok, I wasn't going to bother with this thread but your post is interesting and brings up a interesting point.
Other than take away your firearms what would make you use them against the government? Also I take it this means that you'd be prepared to shoot US soldiers? That seems like a strange sort of patrioism. (Not an attack on, it just seems like a strange concept)
As far as the OP goes, if that is your reason for having the firearms then whats the harm in keeping them locked in your home?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[AggieDave 6]

Hey pal, I'm still waiting for you to cite your previous references. Can you or were the numbers pulled out of thin air?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Other than take away your firearms what would make you use them against the government?

I don't know that I can answer that for certain. Fundamental abrogation of rights on a wide spread scale, in general. I've actually spent some time asking myself this question, in particular in comparison to real events in US history. Are there any events in US history that would have caused me to take up arms against an oppressive government? While I am uncertain (it's a very tough call, especially when you have children), I think it's likely that I'd have been willing to participate in an armed resistance to the wide scale internment of my fellow citizens that occurred in the early 1940's. I find it shocking, and reprehensible, that there was so little resistance to that massive violation of fundamental rights. Other examples? I'm hard put to find any clear cut cases, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. I just haven't spent enough time thinking about them.

Quote

Also I take it this means that you'd be prepared to shoot US soldiers?

Should I make the decision to engage in armed resistance against an oppressive government, then, yes, of course shooting at it's soldiers would be something I'd do. That's sort of the meaning of "armed resistance."

Quote

That seems like a strange sort of patrioism. (Not an attack on, it just seems like a strange concept)

I'm sure that firing on our own soldiers seemed pretty strange at Lexington, too. Because at that point, the British soldiers _were_ our soldiers. The same applies to Fort Sumter, actually.

Standing up to defend our Constitutional principles is actually a very constructive form of patriotism, because it represents a defense of our principles (and our underlying social contract) rather than an adherence to slavishly following a leadership that diverges from those principles.

Quote

As far as the OP goes, if that is your reason for having the firearms then whats the harm in keeping them locked in your home?

There is no harm, and in fact, I think that any responsible gun owner ought to lock them up. Even if you want to have them handy for self-defense, it's very easy to buy (for less than a hundred dollars) a handgun sized digital entry safe that can be opened in less than 5 seconds and easily fits under your bed.

That doesn't mean that there should be a law mandating such--I'm strongly against that, just as I'm against mandatory use of seat belts, even though I personally buckle up every time I'm in a motor vehicle.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There is no harm, and in fact, I think that any responsible gun owner ought to lock them up. Even if you want to have them handy for self-defense, it's very easy to buy (for less than a hundred dollars) a handgun sized digital entry safe that can be opened in less than 5 seconds and easily fits under your bed.

we've already covered many of the flaws with this. No, it's not the same as using your seat belt.

Then we diverged into made up statistics.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

And in addition, at some point you have to quit carrying it around, and lock it up for the night, or when you go to work - and that involves unloading it and removing a live round from the chamber, which involves the risk of an accidental discharge.

Not a political argument, but a technical question.

John, do you carry with a round in the chamber?

My situation is vastly different from yours, so I've made the decision to carry with nothing in the chamber. I have two small children who are with me most days (and one who likes to put things in and out of my pockets), and I'm sure that my familiarity/comfort with firearms in general is years behind yours. I figure that carrying with the hammer down on an empty chamber requires only one more step should I actually have to use the weapon, and I'm willing to rely on my ability to predict a dangerous situation to earn me the few seconds it will require to rack the slide.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rhaig 0]

Quote

John, do you carry with a round in the chamber?

My situation is vastly different from yours, so I've made the decision to carry with nothing in the chamber. I have two small children who are with me most days (and one who likes to put things in and out of my pockets), and I'm sure that my familiarity/comfort with firearms in general is years behind yours. I figure that carrying with the hammer down on an empty chamber requires only one more step should I actually have to use the weapon, and I'm willing to rely on my ability to predict a dangerous situation to earn me the few seconds it will require to rack the slide.

as long as you train such that chambering the round is part of your draw process, you're not hurting yourself that much. I carry condition 1 because that's how I train. at home, my pistol is either in a gun safe, or on my waist secured in it's holster (with trigger covered). So I don't feel the same need to add the extra step.

--
Rob

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

There is no harm, and in fact, I think that any responsible gun owner ought to lock them up. Even if you want to have them handy for self-defense, it's very easy to buy (for less than a hundred dollars) a handgun sized digital entry safe that can be opened in less than 5 seconds and easily fits under your bed.

we've already covered many of the flaws with this.

The flaws with me thinking that people ought to, and with doing so myself?

I'm not arguing that there ought to be any kind of law governing this, or that anyone should be liable for misuse of their property by another.

For what it's worth, in my opinion the best argument for not locking up a home defense gun in some kind of easy access safe is that handguns are often not ideal for home defense, and it's virtually impossible to find a "quickvault" style safe for a long gun. If you don't have children around, that's a pretty good argument for not locking your home defense weapon. In my case, I've accepted that my decision to have children means that I am going to take a few extra seconds to access a handgun, and something more like 30 extra seconds to access a long gun, in the event of a home invasion. That's a decision I've made, for me. The decisions you make, for you, are exactly that--your decisions, and none of my (or the governments) business.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John, do you carry with a round in the chamber?

My situation is vastly different from yours, so I've made the decision to carry with nothing in the chamber. I have two small children who are with me most days (and one who likes to put things in and out of my pockets), and I'm sure that my familiarity/comfort with firearms in general is years behind yours. I figure that carrying with the hammer down on an empty chamber requires only one more step should I actually have to use the weapon, and I'm willing to rely on my ability to predict a dangerous situation to earn me the few seconds it will require to rack the slide.

My car guns have a round in the chamber. They get handled very little. However, they are 1911 models in which this can be done safely, with a safety lever that has to be flipped off before firing, and also a grip safety. Not all guns are like that.

My on-person carry gun I keep the chamber empty, and like you, I will rack the slide to chamber the round when need be. I too choose to accept the short delay, rather than risk an accidental discharge with a gun in my pants.

Like you said in your following message, these are personal decisions that everyone ought to get to make for themselves, depending upon their personal family circumstances, their lifestyle, their training, and their types of firearms. It's not the government's business to mandate a one-size-fits-all law for gun safety.

If the government did this for parachutes we would all be jumping parachutes with a wing-loading of 1.0 or less, opening at 5,000 feet with the tandems, motorcycle helmets would be mandatory, and BASE rigs would be illegal.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

If the government did this for parachutes we would all be jumping parachutes with a wing-loading of 1.0 or less, opening at 5,000 feet with the tandems, motorcycle helmets would be mandatory, and BASE rigs would be illegal.

Don't forget the capewells and belly mount reserves.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is no harm, and in fact, I think that any responsible gun owner ought to lock them up. Even if you want to have them handy for self-defense, it's very easy to buy (for less than a hundred dollars) a handgun sized digital entry safe that can be opened in less than 5 seconds and easily fits under your bed.

we've already covered many of the flaws with this.

The flaws with me thinking that people ought to, and with doing so myself?

I'm not arguing that there ought to be any kind of law governing this, or that anyone should be liable for misuse of their property by another.

For what it's worth, in my opinion the best argument for not locking up a home defense gun in some kind of easy access safe is that handguns are often not ideal for home defense, and it's virtually impossible to find a "quickvault" style safe for a long gun. If you don't have children around, that's a pretty good argument for not locking your home defense weapon. In my case, I've accepted that my decision to have children means that I am going to take a few extra seconds to access a handgun, and something more like 30 extra seconds to access a long gun, in the event of a home invasion. That's a decision I've made, for me. The decisions you make, for you, are exactly that--your decisions, and none of my (or the governments) business.

Tom, in your first statement, you said "any responsible" owner, which really translates to everyone. In your second post, you note many of the exceptions that would lead some, particularly those without kids, to opt not to use one.

[TomAiello 26]

When I say that "you" (that's the generic "you" rather than the specific kelpdiver) ought to lock up our guns, that's in much the same way that I think "you" ought to vote for Ron Paul. It's my personal opinion that most everyone ought to do that thing. That doesn't mean that I think there ought to be a law requiring (or even encouraging) it.

I would personally encourage almost everyone to lock their guns, wear their seatbelt and vote for Ron Paul. But that's a fair ways from wanting to pass a law requiring any of those things, and I'm realistic enough to respect the rights of other people to hold varying opinions on any of those things.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I would personally encourage almost everyone to ........

But that's a fair ways from wanting to pass a law requiring any of those things, and I'm realistic enough to respect the rights of other people to hold varying opinions on any of those things.

that's the breakdown - there are many that think any opinion they have should be a law as a result. Therefore, they assume when another advocates a "personal opinion" (projection occurs)......

socialists believe everything should have a law to regulate behavior

individualists believe a minimum level of personal standards will cover most behavior and it will happen as a natural occurence of upbringing

these are too divergent to facilitate friendly debate

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

socialists believe everything should have a law to regulate behavior

It would appear that you don't understand what socialism is.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

When I say that "you" (that's the generic "you" rather than the specific kelpdiver) ought to lock up our guns, that's in much the same way that I think "you" ought to vote for Ron Paul. It's my personal opinion that most everyone ought to do that thing. That doesn't mean that I think there ought to be a law requiring (or even encouraging) it.

No, you noted that in your first post. You never advocated a law. But you did say that everyone should do it, and it's less responsible not to. But unlike seat belt use, there are many valid reasons against always having it locked away.

A mini vault means the gun stays in a single location, so a single person can't move it from room to room if they feel it warranted, and they are hard to secure from theft, and instead scream out - steal me. If I were a single woman with a hulking ex boyfriend, I think I would find this unacceptable.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

socialists believe everything should have a law to regulate behavior

It would appear that you don't understand what socialism is.

When I was living in a country trying very hard to recover from their 50 year experiment with "socialism" (their term, not mine) in the early 90's, I heard a funny/ironic joke.

Quote

"What is Socialism?

The solution to problems that would not otherwise have occurred."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

A mini vault means the gun stays in a single location, so a single person can't move it from room to room if they feel it warranted, and they are hard to secure from theft, and instead scream out - steal me. If I were a single woman with a hulking ex boyfriend, I think I would find this unacceptable.

When I said that I thought people should lock up their guns, I meant "when they are being stored," not "all the time, even when they are actually in use or being carried."

Wouldn't she just carry it on her person while awake, and leave the minivault in a location very accessible to her bed? Or just only put the gun in the minivault when she was leaving it at home without her?


It's also very easy to move a minivault to another room if you (for example) are sleeping in a different bed for a night or something like that.

I concur with you on them basically screaming "steal me" but having the mini-vault with my vintage first generation glock 21 stolen from my bedroom is going to be the least of my worries if someone is actually robbing my home.


It is still legal to carry a firearm on your person inside your own residence, even in California, isn't it? Because if it's not...well, damn, I don't even know what to say.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

When I said that I thought people should lock up their guns, I meant "when they are being stored," not "all the time, even when they are actually in use or being carried."
...
It is still legal to carry a firearm on your person inside your own residence, even in California, isn't it? Because if it's not...well, damn, I don't even know what to say.

Uh, you didn't read the first 2 sections of postings on this topic, then. The entire reason for this thread is the SF law stating that guns are to be locked up at home...all the time. It is, of course, ignored, but the NRA is going to officially wipe it out (and collect attorneys fees in the process).