***Official SF Bay Area Sightings/General Thread***

Originally Posted by Devious21

If we are talking about guns that are being sold in a shop, they I could agree there could probably be some regulation on how they are displayed or how close they can be to the door, etc.

As far as what people can do in their own home, I'm not sure there's anything realistic that can be done there. I own a gun and I don't have children. I keep my gun loaded and hidden but not locked. The point of the weapon is defense and if it is locked up, I don't want my safety at the mercy of some locking device in the middle of the night.

That said, people with children should be more responsible and I believe there is already a law that states if a child under the age of 18 gets a hold of a weapon because of negligence and harms himself or others, you can be prosecuted for a felony.

Bottom line, California already has a law that all firearms sold must be accompanied with a cable lock so that it can be transported to the owners home legally. It just adds an additional expense on top of the gun most times. You pay for the gun + additional cable lock. If you did the same thing for some kind of container, people would just start bundling the cheapest container that still meets regulation with the guns and it would add to the expense. You still couldn't enforce people to use them. Plus, I don't want someone telling me what I can or can't do in my own home.

I've thought about this quite a bit as well, and I haven't been able to find a way to legally make people responsible for someone ELSE stealing their property and committing a crime with it. And maybe the fact that I'm trying to answer that question is the problem.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by B_Cyrus

This hurts my head trying to understand.

i heard this thread likes cats

Originally Posted by 323ci newbie

lol miles

lol

Originally Posted by XKxRome0ox

i heard this thread likes cats

Yep, we like kitties.

do not ignore my incest

Originally Posted by mkodama

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

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

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.

morning

Originally Posted by Devious21

Originally Posted by Devious21

Originally Posted by DJ RaMiN

NGC

Lambo or Ferrari?

More than you can afford pal
Ferrari

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Bimmer App

Ferrari with Lambo doors.

Originally Posted by 323ci newbie

NGC

Lambo or Ferrari?

Prius. YOLO, bruh.

Mclaren mp4-12c

Sent from my HP Touchpad using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by Devious21

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.



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.




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.

Ugh... all good points. This gun law stuff is hard.