View Single Post
Old 12-30-2012, 06:46 AM   #290587
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 11,073
My Ride: is topless
Originally Posted by mkodama View Post
This is just opinion here, but I think if someone needs a weapon for instant use, they should have the weapon on them. If the weapon isn't on them, or in use, I don't think a lock will make a bit of difference and the weapon should be put somewhere safe, and the more dangerous the weapon, I think the more safe that place needs to be.
I'm not going to sleep with my gun on me but if it's next to me on my dresser that's more than adequate to be combat effective. If it's locked in a safe, that's another story.

Originally Posted by mkodama View Post
The cable lock and child law thing isn't really what I'm getting at, because neither of those actively delay or prevent people from picking up a gun. I'd bet many peoples' answer to the child law is just putting the gun on top of a tall dresser or not telling their child(ren) about the gun, and the cable lock does nothing for preventing people from taking the gun, just operation.
My point was that there is already a law on the books for that, which provides little more than an additional fee. It can be ignored just as your proposed law can be ignored. At the end of the day, it will add additional cost for a "certified safe" that will just be tacked on to the fee and then people will go about business as usual.

Originally Posted by mkodama View Post
I think simply making sure people have the means of putting a gun in a safe place is a large chunk of it, and if you could find a way to emphasize they shouldn't make it easy for weapons to be stolen, those two things would be most of the problems solved right there. I think someone showing the capacity to store a gun safely is as effective as a person showing they have the psychological capacity to own a gun. Both helpful ways in preventing issues, even if they do involve personal details.
The last 2 shootings - in one case the guns were taken because they were left on a table out of the safe. The 2nd because they were stolen from a gun store with plenty of safes but they were out on display. I don't think the "Capacity" to store a gun is an issue.

You also have to take into account what the law will realistically accomplish. My analogy to the child locks was that there is a law there to encourage(not enforce) behavior which can be immediately ignored and just taxes people to pay for the lock. So requiring proof of purchase of a safe can just be seen as a $50 tax on the ability to purchase weapons. Requiring something to be un-theftable is a pretty tall order and it won't actually change anything.

People are going to have to accept that in shootings where people intend to die afterwards, are going to happen. Laws will not stop those people. Our only hope is to improve society as a whole so people like that don't fall through the cracks to the point where they're going on suicidal killing sprees. Positive nationwide change and education isn't our strong point though, so a law on paper makes people feel better, despite it's effectiveness.

Devious21 is offline   Reply With Quote