We have a choice to make if we want to keep our guns

[Gunzilla]

The choice boils down to loosing our 2nd amendment or being REQUIRED to buy a gun safe. Which would you choose?

Before you go ballistic think about how many of these mass shootings could have been avoided if only the guns used had been stored in a gun safe....and that's not taking into consideration the 400,000 guns per year that would not have been stolen, then possibly used in a crime that may have killed others.

We have to get real about options to politicians attacking the 2nd amendment instead of attacking the real problem of securing the guns so we can secure our rights to own guns at all.

Granted, a gun safe will not be the 100% solution to eliminating mass murder with a firearm....but it will go a very long way to reducing the carnage to a minimum.

What options do you have that may keep our guns rights intact and unchanged.....all while greatly reducing the carnage by the mentally unstable?

 

[Black_Sheep]

I don't think we need another law, gun owners just need to take personal responsability. I got flamed on another forum for opining that part of being a responsible gun owner is properly securing firearms to prevent theft or unauthorized use. At the risk of being flamed again, here's a copy and paste of that post...

This week there has been two high profile shootings where stolen guns were used to murder innocent people. No doubt, countless violent crimes, robberies and murders also involve stolen firearms.

A summary of a 1986 research brief titled "The Armed Criminal in America" is posted on RKBA.org, discussing the relationship between firearms theft and crime. I highlited a few key points...

http://rkba.org/research/wright/arme...l.summary.html


Quote:

Like other theft, gun theft appears to be an "opportunity" crime: most gun thieves (76 percent) stole guns when they came across them, not because they were looking specifically for a gun to steal. The purpose of most gun thefts (70 percent) was to sell or trade the gun to someone else, rather than to obtain one for personal use. Still most of those who had ever stolen guns kept at least one of them for personal use, usually because the stolen gun was a better quality weapon than the gun they were carrying at that time.
Most gun thefts (84 percent) occurred in private residences, but thefts from "high-volume" sources (retailers, wholesalers, shippers, and manufacturers) were also widely reported. These high-volume thefts may in fact account for a larger share of the total volume of stolen guns, due to the potentially greater number of guns stolen per theft. The ideal gun control policy would be one that directly affects the illicit user but leaves the legitimate user pretty much alone. Formulating such a policy, however, presupposes a sharp distinction between the licit and the illicit markets, a distinction seriously eroded by the heavy volume of gun thefts from legitimate owners. The survey data suggests that a successful policy for controlling criminal access to firearms must necessarily address the problem of gun theft, perhaps including measures for informing legitimate owners about the extent and seriousness of gun theft and about procedures for adequately securing their firearms.

Part of being a responsible gun owner is to secure your unattended firearms so they don't end up in the wrong hands. Stashing a gun under the mattress or in a closet is not adequately securing a firearm. Sadly, neither is leaving a gun in the console of your truck parked overnight in your own driveway.

Unsecured guns also increase the potential for accidental shootings like the one in Minneapolis last week. A 4 year old killed a 2 year old sibling after somehow finding a loaded shotgun while his parents were in another room. It was a tragedy that was absolutely avoidable.

Maybe the chain of events leading to the murder of innocent children would have been altered, had the stolen guns been adequately secured.

Just thinking out loud...

 

[Sebago Son]

I don't think that those are our only choices...

 

[Mike McLellan]

Personally, I don't think we need more laws either. However, I do think that, as gun owners, we need to join the debate, and try to offer some positive dialogue. As it is now, whenever a tragedy like this occurs, I hear both sides chanting bumper-sticker slogans, and doing nothing to make a difference. The NRA, that self-appointed spokesman for all of us gun people should, not only join the debate; it should lead the debate. Circling the wagons until the anti-gun rhetoric dies down is NOT taking a leadership role. Concessions need to be considered. If we don't help find a solution, one will be crammed down our constitutional throats.

 

[nipster]

I thought I read where this woman HAD a gun safe...

 

[eb07]

The choice boils down to loosing our 2nd amendment or being REQUIRED to buy a gun safe. Which would you choose?

Before you go ballistic think about how many of these mass shootings could have been avoided if only the guns used had been stored in a gun safe....and that's not taking into consideration the 400,000 guns per year that would not have been stolen, then possibly used in a crime that may have killed others.

We have to get real about options to politicians attacking the 2nd amendment instead of attacking the real problem of securing the guns so we can secure our rights to own guns at all.

Granted, a gun safe will not be the 100% solution to eliminating mass murder with a firearm....but it will go a very long way to reducing the carnage to a minimum.

What options do you have that may keep our guns rights intact and unchanged.....all while greatly reducing the carnage by the mentally unstable?

So now the mentally unstable will have to stab their family members in their sleep and obtain the safe key?

 

[Gunzilla]

Personally, I don't think we need more laws either. However, I do think that, as gun owners, we need to join the debate, and try to offer some positive dialogue. As it is now, whenever a tragedy like this occurs, I hear both sides chanting bumper-sticker slogans, and doing nothing to make a difference. The NRA, that self-appointed spokesman for all of us gun people should, not only join the debate; it should lead the debate. Circling the wagons until the anti-gun rhetoric dies down is NOT taking a leadership role. Concessions need to be considered. If we don't help find a solution, one will be crammed down our constitutional throats.

I'm trying to make a difference, I've called my State and National Representatives, and hope to meet with my national rep after new years day to discuss this option.....I HOPE OTHERS WILL DO THE SAME. You can bet the left is out there trying to take your guns....now what you willing to do to keep them (short of going to war)?

We, as gun owners, need to concede to some new law that will secure our 2nd amendment rights (and our guns) or we can expect the government to dictate to us what we are going to have to do.....and that could be a ban on some, if not all guns.

Why is it nobody is talking about securing weapons and all the talk is of restricting ownership?

If people are too cheap or irresponsible to secure their weapons then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to own them in the first place. ...or maybe they need to have one of their owned killed with a gun that should have been secured in something other than a closet.

CONTACT YOUR STATE AND NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT A NATIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR GUN OWNERS WITH MORE THAN 1 CCW GUN TO HAVE A GUN SAFE!

LETS SHUT THE GUN-GRABBERS UP ONCE AND FOR ALL, LETS SHOW THEM WE ARE RESPONSIBLY.....OR THEY'LL SHOW US HOW THEY'LL PASS LAWS THAT WILL RESTRICT WHAT KINDS OF GUNS WE CAN OWN....IF ANY.

 

[Gunzilla]

So now the mentally unstable will have to stab their family members in their sleep and obtain the safe key?

You must have missed the part where I said 'a gun safe will NOT be the 100% solution'.

A gun safe will not eliminate all murder with guns, but it will greatly reduce the number of guns stolen every year, currently 400,000) and the number of guns used in murders......it will never stop the determined psychopaths.

BTW, If you have a safe with a key (or electronic keypad) you bought the wrong safe.

 

[CoMF]

It sounds good in theory, but in practice it could make firearms ownership a "rich man's hobby" as any safe that provides more security than a locked cabinet that merely deters casual snoopers is not going to be cheap.

Also, what's stopping legislators from mandating a minimum level of "security," making it a crime to store your firearms in anything that doesn't meet some arbitrary, to-be-determined UL rating?

I know your intent is noble, but think of how even the most well-meaning legislation can be misused before endorsing it.

 

[PDL]

After reading some of these posts it's no wonder the anti gunners are winning.

We don't need new laws to secure our second amendment rights - It's a right, it is the LAW.

Lock up your guns if you care to. What I do with mine is none of your, or the government's business.
Gee, how about we lock up your guns at the town run armory instead of your unqualified safe.

Keep giving in and it becomes the camel's nose under the tent. Pretty soon he's sleeping in your bed.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Personally, I don't think we need more laws either. However, I do think that, as gun owners, we need to join the debate, and try to offer some positive dialogue. As it is now, whenever a tragedy like this occurs, I hear both sides chanting bumper-sticker slogans, and doing nothing to make a difference. The NRA, that self-appointed spokesman for all of us gun people should, not only join the debate; it should lead the debate. Circling the wagons until the anti-gun rhetoric dies down is NOT taking a leadership role. Concessions need to be considered. If we don't help find a solution, one will be crammed down our constitutional throats.

Very well said Mike. I hope those at the NRA HQ are listening. In January congress will reconvene and start to hold hearings. Proposals for changes in the laws will be made. If the NRA is seen as a responsible, concerned organization willing to listen and work with congress, the public will support us. If, however, they are seen as (you say) circling the wagons, we can lose that support and laws based on emotion will be passed that we will not like.

 

[Joewisc]

Those who have guns already will be allowed to keep them. Those who will buy guns in the future probably will have to jump through a few more hoops. What's missed is that this is a golden opportunity for the feds and states to pass new laws and taxes -- look for an federal ammunition tax to be proposed -- as a way to discourage gun ownership and appear as those they are solving problems. Chicago averages 10 murders a week and not a peep about new laws in the state that has the most stringent gun laws in the nation. I don't see Obama going to those funerals or crying on TV about the home boys getting slaughtered.

 

[rolomac]

Personally, I don't think we need more laws either. However, I do think that, as gun owners, we need to join the debate, and try to offer some positive dialogue. As it is now, whenever a tragedy like this occurs, I hear both sides chanting bumper-sticker slogans, and doing nothing to make a difference. The NRA, that self-appointed spokesman for all of us gun people should, not only join the debate; it should lead the debate. Circling the wagons until the anti-gun rhetoric dies down is NOT taking a leadership role. Concessions need to be considered. If we don't help find a solution, one will be crammed down our constitutional throats.

It is time for the NRA to truly assume a leadership role. There will be new laws, taxes and restrictions - we're in denial if we doubt that. Do we want new laws, taxes and restrictions to be fabricated by anti-gun nitwits ? Wouldn't it be more palatable to us if they are fabricated by knowlegable people who support the second amendment and who know about guns and gun ownership ? NRA members should demand that their organization step forward and be strong leaders in the changes that will be coming.

rolomac

 

[cololab]

Excellent points above, however I too don't think we need to be adding any additional legislation to the myriad laws currently on the books.

My concern is that we have, as a country, lost our sense of history about so many things. In so doing, we have systematically eroded many of the principles and values once held to be sacred.

If we were dealing with a media and a populace that were interested in the truth of any matter, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. As we know, however, facts count for little anymore unless they promote the agenda of whomever happens to be in control of things.

We should all continue to do our respective parts to not give in to the anti-gun lunacy, despite the uphill battle we seem to be facing.

 

[Gunzilla]

What I do with mine is none of your, or the government's business.

That is the pinnacle of irresponsibility.

...and that's where you are wrong, ...once your guns are stolen and they are used to kill innocent civilians (maybe even you, or a family mamber) then it becomes everyone's business....and we are witnessing this on TV everyday since the mass murder at the school.

Every gun owner in America is now at risk of losing our gun rights because some people think it's OK to endanger their lives and the lives of everyone in their community.....by leaving unsecured weapons throughout their homes.

Not securing your weapons is equal to leaving your unoccupied car running, with the door open, in front of bar at closing time.

 

[Gunzilla]

Excellent points above, however I too don't think we need to be adding any additional legislation to the myriad laws currently on the books.

Someone is going to legislate and pass a new set of laws.....would you prefer it be the laws the gun-grabbers want or ones that we can say are ours....and that secures our rights?

For those refusing to buy a safe they should be held responsibly for allowing their weapon to be stolen or taken and used in the commission of a crime. So, if you don't want a safe that' s fine with me, but that will subject you to jail-time if it's used in a crime....and a long jail sentence if it's used in a murder. 1 or 2 of those case making their way through the courts and buying a gun safe will then become part of the gun owners responsibilities if they want to own more than 1 gun.

Don't forget who the president is and his disdain for guns, and don't doubt for 1 second his willingness to circumvent congress, and the constitution, to get his way.

We can control this debate....but not by standing back and watching.

 

[poordevil]

I would guess that more than 20 peoples lives are saved every day of the week all year long, every year in this country, through the use of guns, ether being used or shown.

Guns, over all, do more good than harm. But those who hate a thing, will never allow that it has a good use, so they will ignore the good and focus on the bad.

 

[jlrhiner]

To those advocating a safe, how about giving a gun lock away with each gun purchase?

Oh, wait..........

 

[Black_Sheep]

I thought I read where this woman HAD a gun safe...

Even if she did have a safe (I have not been able to find out whether she did or not) it's possible that the shooter knew the combination.

 

[ladder13]

Mandating people buy safes is not going to satisfy the gun grabbers, you're fooling yourself. My .02