A missed opportunity for easy and REAL gun violence improvement?

[Buckeye 50]

It seems to me that all the time I am hearing of someone committing gun violence because they had ready access, or unlimited/unsecured access to guns and ammo where they live or visit - often by parents or relatives.  Wasn't Sandy Hook done by the son of a mother who had a small, UNSECURED arsenal??


I think we should pass law making the owners just as responsible and culpable as the one who actually pulls the trigger if not properly secured.  Not sure how much of a REAL difference it would make as evil will inevitably find a way.........


Thoughts?


Pat

[sqlbullet]

Nope. 

I am a huge proponent of keeping your guns locked up when not in use.  But a legal requirement increases the burden financially to own a gun.  There should not be a tax on self defense.

Plus, you can't dodge the law of unintended consequences.  Pass this law and the first thing you know grandma will be in the clink because she had a scum bag son.

[Buckeye 50]

SQL:


But if people were had a "duty" to secure it wouldn't it be less likely there would be fewer things like the Sandy Hook where someone in the house helped themselves just because things were unlocked and totally accessible?


Pat

[Wolfie]

If your weapon is not secured you should be held accountable.

My biggest fear on the job was losing my gun or shield. Never mind a loss of days and ridicule, if you lost your gun and it was used in a crime you would be fired.

You have a right to bear arms, not leave a gun unsecure.

[Charlie_Zulu]

Wasn't Sandy Hook done by the son of a mother who had a small, UNSECURED arsenal??

Since when has 6 firearms in a home (Bushmaster XM15, Savage Mark II, Enfield, Saiga 12, Glock 20, Sig 226) been considered an arsenal?!?

That sounds like MSM, libtard, anti 2A-speak. 

Seriously... 

SMH

[DM1906]

California has had these laws, and more, for years. They changed nothing, statistically. No lives were saved. No incidents were prevented. NOT ONE person was safer because of the laws. Statistically. A national law will do no better. Immediate access and storage habits don't cross state lines. The only effort that will improve the situation is education. Good luck with that. Adam Lanza was educated. Laws and law enforcement has to be 100% successful, every time, or people die. The bad guy only has to be a little bit successful, once, and people die. Can't win them all. Ever.

[Geeman]

Who said the Sandy Hook guns weren't secure?  Are you sure?

I don't know why, but it was in my head that the cops thought he forced mommy to open the safe, then killed her.

Even if it didn't happen, it certainly could. 

As I see it, how do you stop violence?  Gun violence is only one version.  Should we lock baseball bats, hammers, car keys, knives.....

I'm not much for all these extra laws, because their only effect is to draw more fine money from the folks.  More profit potential for the city.  Kid playing with his air soft gun, parents fined $800 for not securing it.

No to BS laws.  Yes to being held liable for being negligent, and that suit can already be filed in all 50 states.

Greg

[sqlbullet]

Who said the Sandy Hook guns weren't secure?  Are you sure?

Lanza shot his mother in her bed as she slept.  So, either the guns were not secured, or Lanza the code to the security container.

However, this illustrates why such a law is a bad idea.  This man was deranged enough to kill his own mother in her sleep.  Nothing you do, short of completely banning guns, is going to reduce accessibility to such a maniac.  A residential security container is too easily breeched to offer a real barrier.

This law would not create accountability.  It would create a new class of "criminals" made up of law abiding citizens.  A whole new class of victims of the crazy that occassionally occurs, and in truth cannot be stopped at the point the maniac is seeking a gun.

If you want to correct these types of incidents we need to do a better job at early detection and treatment of mental illness.  And that is made possible by lowering out GINI numbers and increasing our HDI.  Norway is a great model, and it has a tiny fraction of the national debt as a percentage of GDP that the US does.

[my_old_glock]

I think we should pass law making the owners just as responsible and culpable as the one who actually pulls the trigger if not properly secured.  Not sure how much of a REAL difference it would make as evil will inevitably find a way.........

Thoughts?

Pat

That law exists in California.

It doesn't count if you are a LEO and you leave your gun laying around so your 3 year old son can shoot you with it. Then it is Glock's fault for making an unsafe gun.

.

[my_old_glock]

Who said the Sandy Hook guns weren't secure?  Are you sure?

Lanza shot his mother in her bed as she slept.  So, either the guns were not secured, or Lanza the code to the security container.

1) Adam Lanza was 20 years old. He could have purchased any rifle he wanted, but not a pistol.

2) Supposedly he knew the combination to the gun safe. His mother let him use the guns.

3) Mrs Lanza was supposedly a member f the NRA, or she use to be and her membership ran out.

4) You will never know the full story of what happened. Only what "they" want you to know.


.

[Wolfie]

This is creepy, just like 911

[DM1906]

Who said the Sandy Hook guns weren't secure?  Are you sure?

I don't know why, but it was in my head that the cops thought he forced mommy to open the safe, then killed her.

Even if it didn't happen, it certainly could. 

As I see it, how do you stop violence?  Gun violence is only one version.  Should we lock baseball bats, hammers, car keys, knives.....

I'm not much for all these extra laws, because their only effect is to draw more fine money from the folks.  More profit potential for the city.  Kid playing with his air soft gun, parents fined $800 for not securing it.

No to BS laws.  Yes to being held liable for being negligent, and that suit can already be filed in all 50 states.

Greg

I was referring to his firearms education, and that no single measure is a solution. No one I know of suggested the guns were secure or unsecure, before or after she was killed. We may never know, and simply, it doesn't matter. As was pointed out above, he was an adult, and likely had access, even if they were secure at the time, even by the most aggressive method allowed or required by law. He shot/killed his mother while she was on the bed. I don't know of any confirmation that she was killed while she slept, or facts supporting the likelihood. Evidence only indicates she was shot at that location. The only witnesses to the event are deceased. According to witness interviews, he despised his mother because he was jealous of the students in her class. His need for her to open the safe(s) is unknown, and there's no evidence to suggest he needed her assistance to access the weapons, wherever or however they were stored.

Know this, though. Immediate family members are among the last to accept the severity of someone's state of mental illness, and the first to refute the possibility of a dangerous condition, even after that dangerous condition, such as Columbine, Sandy Hook or Aurora, actually surfaces.

[10-4]

A solution in search of a problem.  99.999% of all guns in the USA are never used in a crime.  But how many people are killed by vehicle accidents?  A lot more than by guns.  How about a law requiring car keys be kept in a safe?  And you have to blow 0.00 before that safe will open.  And if some nut gets hold of those keys and runs over 15 kids at a school bus stop I think we have a good case against the manufacturer of that vehicle.

And you can apply that thinking to any dangerous object.

Remember: 99.999% of all guns in the USA are never used to commit any crime. 

[Mr. AR50]

A solution in search of a problem.  99.999% of all guns in the USA are never used in a crime.  But how many people are killed by vehicle accidents?  A lot more than by guns.  How about a law requiring car keys be kept in a safe?  And you have to blow 0.00 before that safe will open.  And if some nut gets hold of those keys and runs over 15 kids at a school bus stop I think we have a good case against the manufacturer of that vehicle.

And you can apply that thinking to any dangerous object.

Remember: 99.999% of all guns in the USA are never used to commit any crime. 

I couldn't have said it better myself. A+

[my_old_glock]

A solution in search of a problem.  99.999% of all guns in the USA are never used in a crime.  But how many people are killed by vehicle accidents?  A lot more than by guns.  How about a law requiring car keys be kept in a safe?  And you have to blow 0.00 before that safe will open.  And if some nut gets hold of those keys and runs over 15 kids at a school bus stop I think we have a good case against the manufacturer of that vehicle.

And you can apply that thinking to any dangerous object.

Remember: 99.999% of all guns in the USA are never used to commit any crime.

They have devices that attach to a vehicles ignition that require a person to blow in it before they start the engine. If there is any alcohol in their system, the device won't let the engine start. Someone else (spouse, child, friend, etc) could blow in the device and start the car for the drunk person. Some friends of mine are auto mechanics, and they have had to work on cars with that device. They complain because every time they start the engine, they have to blow in it. Don't be surprised if someday such a device is on every car from the factory.


I think enforcing the laws and increasing punishment will do more good than any gizmo.



.