Your opinion on this gun law?

[jdg]

I should be held responsible if I give permission (or hand the weapon) to someone who I know intends to misuse it, or who I know is legally disqualified from having that weapon. I should not be held responsible merely because I lend my weapon to my girlfriend, adult child, or whoever and that person misuses it or is careless with it. In those cases the adult I gave it to is the person who should answer for his choice.

 

[Liko81]

I'm beginning to see your point. The only place a gun is *really* secure is in posession of its lawful owner. Therefore, the real problem is "prohibited places" (schools, courthouses, federal buildings, etc) where a citizen is not allowed to carry a gun -- because this forces one to store the gun somewhere where it could be stolen by a determined thief.

We need to do away with all alleged "gun free zones." It's the only solution when you take your premise to its logical conclusion.

Go for it; I want to be able to carry wherever I choose as well, and yes, it is the logical conclusion, as a car is far easier to break in and grab from than a house.

False analogy then, and false analogy now. A viral agent doesn't need a terrorist to steal it to be dangerous. All that has to happen, assuming it's airborne, is to escape containment. Those laws are in place for that reason. My guns are no threat to anyone without volition and action.

Fine then; a nuclear waste dump. The waste in its container or even sitting out in the open is not as big a hazard as you might think; the material is self-containing to a degree. Make a dirty bomb out of it (which requires volition and action) and detonate it (more volition and action) and you cause a LOT of harm because you spread radiation across a wide area, and make it airborne. Nuclear waste disposal sites therefore have as much if not more security than a Level 4 disease center, even though they do not have the same airtight containment rules.

THIS was the point of contention. I don't think anyone here advocates keeping all guns out, loaded and ready.

Really? I had the distinct impression that many here were advocating exactly that, just to be in the complete opposite corner from my argument ("I don't have to lock up ANY of my knives! You can't make me!"). Similarly, the slipperly slope which I do understand happening to a small degree, being reduced to utter absurdity, which as I explained (and no one bothered to reply to that) only makes the arguer look absurd. Of course we won't ban knives or require they be locked up; It's a good idea to secure them though. Chefs, sous-chefs and cooks in your finer restaurants take their knives to work and back every day; they're responsible for having them and keeping them in good condition. You don't touch a chef's knives, and there are locking hardcase knife blocks for that exact purpose.

 

[Mall Ninja]

Of course we won't ban knives or require they be locked up; It's a good idea to secure them though. Chefs, sous-chefs and cooks in your finer restaurants take their knives to work and back every day

Get real. The reason they carry their knives to and from work isn't because they're afraid some nut will go Ginsu on the diners, but because the knives are expensive and delicate, and they don't want anyone swiping or damaging them.

Talk about strained similes and mulched metaphors... This is really getting entertaining!

 

[xd45gaper]

i think everyone is missing reading this "law",

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.

it really makes NO sense at all, if they are "secured" safe, cable lock etc, then they would not really have access to them, and if they did have access(had a key to cable lock, in a safe etc) they where "secured" before said person uses YOUR firearm so you couldnt really be prosecuted because you took the steps to keep your firearms secure.. and if they didnt have a key etc to your firearms and they take it anyways well you wouldnt be held liable for that either...

what could they prosecute you for???

 

[Liko81]

none of this is going to stop someone determined to cause pain

Except gun locks

Did I ever say a breeck lock would keep out someone determined to have your gun? Here, you like quoting me, I'll quote myself:

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.

I however go on to say that just because a lock is only a deterrent doesn't mean that it isn't better than nothing. By your logic, your front door can be defeated in 10 seconds by breaking a window; therefore, locks on your doors are worthless, and you might as well leave your front door unlocked. It's a crime for someone to enter your home without your permission, right? Tell that to the cop who takes your statement after a burglary and he'll laugh all the way back to the cruiser to report a "yard sale". That's if there is no local ordinance making failure to secure your home a crime (as it is in Dallas).

I live in North Central Dallas where wealthy neighborhoods are blocks from Section 8 subsidized housing. We have our own anti-gang, anti-prostitution unit of the DPD (Vickery Meadow Crime Strike) that's dedicated to our area. I hear ambulances and cop cars outside my window at least once a week, and more than once I have heard someone unloading a magazine within a block from me. I have two sliding glass doors in my apartment; if somebody wants in, they will get in. Does that mean I don't lock and bolt my front door? Uh, no. It means I bolt my front door religiously and sleep very well each night with my 9mm loaded with 15 Federal Hydra-Shoks under my pillow. I will hear a 3/4", 9'x4' plate glass sheet shattering, and my gun will immediately be racked, de-safed and ready to unleash a world of pain and blood loss.

I don't happen to carry however (open carry is illegal and I don't have a CHL yet), so every morning the gun is unloaded, opened, and locked with a hardened steel shackle Master lock before it is hidden. The only key is on my house key ring, left in the lock when it's not on the gun (the spare is in a safe deposit box), so I cannot fail to remember. Every evening, I come home, unload the detritus of the day, head to my dresser, and unlock my gun. It's simple habit, and anything less would be negligent firearm care, especially when my apartment's front door IS so easy to bypass. Someone breaking into my house for valuables has only to look around; there's plenty of crap in my house they can pawn for their next fix without looking for a gun, but that doesn't mean if they find it they should immediately be able to load the mag and stick it in their belt. I would do the same even if I lived in Lake Highlands or Southlake. My handgun may be in my nightstand in that case, though.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's a crime for someone to enter your home without your permission, right? Tell that to the cop who takes your statement after a burglary and he'll laugh all the way back to the cruiser to report a "yard sale".

Yes, but are you criminally liable if he steals your kitchen utensils and stabs someone with them?

We're not talking about whether it's a good idea to lock up guns. I lock mine up. We're talking about whether one should be criminally liable for their theft.

I live in North Central Dallas where wealthy neighborhoods are blocks from Section 8 subsidized housing.

...and I wonder about your critical thinking skills, as well as those of every one of your wealthy neighbors who paid for those houses... But that's none of my business, really. Do what you want. But it's also not my business to make you a criminal if you have your door unlocked sometimes.

Maybe there's nowhere else to live in Dallas or something.

We're not talking about whether locking up guns, or front doors, is a good idea -- and I do both -- we're talking about punishing people for the crimes of others. It would be stupid for you to leave your door unlocked, but is stupidity a crime?

 

[ptmmatssc]

Liko81 , you can say whatever you want in trying to put the blame on anyone but the person who is committing a crime . For me , my responsibility is to protect and not put in danger , those in my family as well as those I invite into my home . The spirit of "a man's home is his castle", " each man chooses his own destiny" , "do the crime , do the time" , " a lock just keeps an honest man honest" etc etc is how I was raised and how I live .

Portions of this thread remind me of the burglar who sued because , while trying to break into a house , he fell through the skylight and broke his leg . Of course it was the homeowners fault for not protecting that poor criminal by safeguarding that skylight .

 

[v35]

What you described sounds like a new and improved version of DC's existing law. No, I don't support it. That goes double for version 2.0.

 

[Rockrz]

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?

No, I would not support a law like that.

But, right now people are being held financially liable by lawyers who will help victims collect all your assets in a lawsuit! Not much you can do when they take the case in front of a jury.

That's happening now with most anything you may own if it is used to hurt or kill another person. I've seen all kinds of news stories about this over the years as I've watched legal issues in the news.

 

[J-NM]

Hmm, what if we all mailed those locks to the Donkey's headquarters and told them just where to insert them?

Question, would this law also mean those that obtain guns illegally, the criminals also be held responsible?

You said NO, and that is also my answer to supporting such a dumb law.

 

[ilcylic]

I'm going with "no". And I'll leave the fussin' to the fussy.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

Liko81: It just keeps getting better

Did I ever say a breeck lock would keep out someone determined to have your gun?

A door lock, easily defeated, isn't enough to avoid prosecution in your world. A breech or trigger lock, easily defeated, IS enough to avoid prosecution in your world. How about if I put a "do not steal or misuse this product" sticker on my firearms, is that good enough? It's all about appearances and my stickers can't be misunderstood by a criminal, unlike your lock, which may only be there to keep children or visitors from danger.

Guns come with breech locks; in many states it is illegal to sell a new gun without one. In addition, a breech lock is very cheap to buy for a gun you bought used or before manufacturers had to hand out locks for their guns.

It is a feel-good measure only. It would not solve crime, it would not stop crime, so what is your point? Just skip to charging the legal owner as an accessory to whatever crime is committed with his stolen guns...I'm sure that you will find allies in the Brady organization, certain mayors of certain cities, and big-city police chiefs.

 

[Dallas239]

Liko81,

In the D/FW area, it IS in fact a crime to leave your house or car unlocked. You can be ticketed and even summonsed for doing so.

Do you have a cite for this law? The DFW area comprises probably 30+ cities and towns. Do all of them have this law?

BTW, Crime Strike is a private security company.

 

[Intune]

High Road

 

[AZ_Rebel]

I have heard someone unloading a magazine within a block from me.

Dang... my hearing must be worse than I thought... I couldn't hear someone unloading a magazine in the same room unless they dropped some rounds on the floor.

Oh... does he mean "shooting a magazine full of ammo"? I get it now...

 

[ArmedBear]

The only thing a "trigger lock" is good for is to prevent someone from grabbing the gun and immediately using it.

Most of the locks that come with guns would be off in less than a second with bolt cutters.

If you want to use a lock on a gun that is not in your immediate possession, so that a kid can't just pick it up and use it, go ahead. But the idea that a trigger lock could deter a criminal from stealing it and using it in a robbery within the hour is just plain wrong.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Can I get some help understanding this law, please?

I understand that gun owners would be responsible for any crime committed with their stolen guns because the fact that the gun was stolen will be prima facie evidence that the owner did not take reasonable precautions to steal it. It's like the rape victim whose rape is prima facie evidence that she enticed the rapist. Besides, if she hadn't been born female there would not have been a rape so it's really all her fault anyway. Defense attorneys for rapists have made that argument many times. It's nothing new.

But what I don't understand is that if the gun owner happens to come upon the burglars as they are stealing his guns but they ignore him, go about their business peacefully and in a non threatening manner, would a gun owner who shot them be considered to have taken a reasonable measure to prevent the theft? Or is he supposed to let them overpower him, take away a gun on his person, allow them to leave with all his guns because his life was not in danger, and just accept the punishment?

Shouldn't there be a provision in this new law that says something like, "Abandon all hope. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and the idea anyway is to make it impossible for people to own guns in this country so stop fighting the point and just give them up." Wouldn't that provision save everyone a lot of time and argument?

I think it's good that new gun owners take their time to help us out with these good ideas. They bring new perspectives and a breath of fresh air to this tired old place.

 

[eliphalet]

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?

NO

 

[Oohrah]

There are WAY too many guns laws that have no effect and
can never work. Why add one more! NOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

[sig226]

No. xx

 

[poor_richard]

Shouldn't there be a provision in this new law that says something like, "Abandon all hope. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and the idea anyway is to make it impossible for people to own guns in this country so stop fighting the point and just give them up." Wouldn't that provision save everyone a lot of time and argument?

Spot on.

None of these laws (proposed or in effect) have anything to do with preventing crime.

People like to say that, "gun control doesn't work". Problem is, it actually does work. It's been disarming citizens, and putting gun shops out of business for years now. Seems like it's working fine.

 

[dasmi]

Negatory.