Contradiction offered without comment,
Were these firearms used or brand new? If they were used, then the dealer failed to include some form of licking device if the originals were missing.
If they were brand new you are either mistaken or lying. All new Remington rifles and shotguns come with a cable lock. And all new Rugers cone with a trigger lock or a cable lock pending on model. These locks are included by the manufacturer, not the dealer.
Both were brand new. The Remington 870 absolutely did not have any form of cable lock. Now, I’m not in the business of selling firearms, so I don’t know that the dealer didn’t remove the cable lock from the box. But this was Vance Outdoor near Columbus, OH–it’s a central Ohio based outdoor chain (I think they have 2-3 locations), that sell a lot of guns. I went into the store to pick the gun up (I had already pre-ordered it online), I was presented with the unboxed firearm for my inspection, after looking it over and handing it back to the clerk he put it into the opened box from Remington and started work on my paperwork. If a cable lock was included in this box, it was removed by the dealer.
The Ruger was purchased at a smaller store in southern WV that is as far as I can tell from an internet search no longer in business.
Now, I will say the vast majority of my gun purchasing occurred in my 20s-40s, which was before 2006 when it appears the Child Safety Lock Act went into effect. As best I can tell that law only requires that licensees provide a “secure storage or safety device” with handguns they sell.
The Ruger would clearly be illegal to sell without something in compliance with that law, as I understand it, the Remington would not be.
For what it’s worth I pulled the 870 out along with its manual, and apparently this gun has a small j-shaped slot in it that can permanently lock the safety on, and requires a tool to unlock. I don’t have that tool to my knowledge, but maybe it was included back when I bought it in 2014 and I’ve since lost it. But that would probably be considered a trigger lock, although I was not aware of it until just now. It’s certainly not one of the external style trigger locks though, it’s built into the gun.
Doesn’t matter. Long guns are also coming with cable locks, including Remington. Wholesale cable locks cost less than trigger locks. About $2-$3 at the most. When new rifles boxes are open the lock is in a small plastic packet. Would be easy for someone to err putting it back in. But a dealer should know better.
Though I believe in responsible and sensible gun control, I don’t see the logic in suing a gun manufacturer for the irresponsible acts of rogue users. If you buy into that thinking, then we should be able to sue Honda if some maniac decides to drive one through a crowd of people and kill them.
You’re kidding, right?
Did you read anything I posted regarding how new firearms are transferred and sold?
I own a cabin in northern Wisconsin. I keep some rifles locked in a safe there. But as much as 4-5 months can go by between visits. During that time if someone breaks in, steals those guns, and uses them in a crime before I find out they are stolen, you are saying I am at fault? That’s insane thinking. What if they steal the Jeep I keep there and they intentionally run someone over. Is that my fault too?
This thought process of blaming everyone but the perpetrator is sick.
If you have your safe clearly marked “GUNS =>>” and they can get into it with bolt cutters or a hacksaw, then, most certainly you bear a non-trivial responsibility for facilitating violence. Providing access, even with hurdles, to weapons is unacceptable. It is convenient for you to leave them up there, but it does not take a huge amount of effort to take them home – unless you have forty fucking guns up there, in which case, why do you need to keep forty fucking guns up there?
You need to handle your killing devices with due caution, including keeping them out of the hands of unknown people. If you are unwilling to take these measures, even, say, take all the ammo home with you, then you should probably not be owning firearms. No one is letting the killer who stole your gun off the hook, but you cannot escape responsibility for letting your gun be stolen to begin with.
This is an absolutely insane train of thought. Who thinks unloaded firearms locked in a safe is “letting” them be stolen. Where the hell do some of you get your ideals from?
If someone breaks into my home, steals a butcher knife out of my kitchen and then stabs my neighbor while burglarizing their home, is that my fault too?
Don’t be smarmy. I cited that as a humorously exaggerated example of a nonetheless valid principle.
That’s part of a much larger trend that could be a whole debate subject in itself: the modern trend of addressing consequences that are either too decentralized or too remote from original actors to be considered their personal malfeasance. Whether contributing to an “environment” with negative consequences is someone’s responsibility even if it is not their “fault” per se.
So you would prefer gun owners carry all of their guns with them at all times? Possibly with an additional armed security escort? Otherwise it seems your objection I simply the length of time the guns are unattended. Assuming that one has a job their guns are unattended for at least 9 hours a day and if they ever leave their homes like for a vacation much more. Is that unacceptable too? There has never been a safe that couldn’t be broken into with enough time and 8 hours is certainly enough time to load any reasonably sized safe up into a truck for indefinite time at a different location.
At a minimum your proposal seems to be saying that poor people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.
What they’re saying is they don’t want anyone to have any form of gun. Regardless if the firearm was purchased legally, unloaded, trigger, internal and cable locked, stored in a safe in a locked closet in a home with dead bolt locks, a security system, a moat, and a 60 foot wall around the property, if a thief still manages to steal said firearm and use it it’s my fault so I better not have it or I will be punished even though the gun is legal and I haven’t done anything wrong.
It’s a sick, sick mentality.
Some time ago someone broke into my locked garage and took some beer out of the refrigerator, along with various tools I had on the bench and peg board. Had they driven drunk and killed someone would that have been my fault too because I didn’t take my beer with me everywhere I go or have it locked it a Fort Knox style vault? What if they smashed somebodies head with the hammer they stole or stabbed them with a screw driver? Or what if they used those tools to build something defective and someone got hurt. Would all that be my fault or Sears Craftman?
I think there could be a middle ground in there somewhere. I do believe that in most cases guns need to be secured and so defining a minimum amount of security to be a responsible gun owner doesn’t seem crazy. I’m just trying to see if there really is a middle ground or if you are correct and this is just some type of back door ban.
Personally, I don’t own a gun safe. My guns are stored broken down on the opposite side of the house from their ammunition which is locked up. I’d like to get a gun safe but moving them is a pain and we just haven’t been settled well enough in the last decade. We’re also talking about getting a biometric handgun safe for the bedside table since that would make the gun easier to access. My primary concern is my kids finding a gun and playing with it and while we talk to them about it I don’t think that’s enough. My guns are safe from being accidentally fired which is the greatest danger in my opinion but you could easily walk off with them once you made it through my security system and dogs. Considering I live in the middle of nowhere a thief could easily load up any safe I could buy in the back of a pickup and drive off long before cops were called let alone got there so I’m not sure the safe adds any layers of prevention to theft it would mainly allow my guns to be more convenient to me.
I have been persuaded by earlier threads that the problem with guns is generally not weak laws. I think the widespread shootings are concerning and that guns could likely be made safer. They are exempt from many laws, which may make sense in some circumstances. Not allowing computerized records makes little sense to me.
My legal knowledge is de minimus, especially of US law, but I thought there were six factors that determine whether something is abnormally dangerous, and as such, might attract strict liability.
https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/abnormally-dangerous-activities/
Whether this applies to guns, independent of exemptions, would possibly depend on the useful things they do, who does them, and where. Then balancing out the sketchier side.
Of course it’s attempt at a ban. It’s why they want to bankrupt the industry, prohibit making your own gun, scare you into not having one, and make it insanely expensive if you do get one.
Most of the guns I own are in a dealership dwelling. The display models are all stored in safe in a vault room at the end of the day and the building is well secured. This does not make is theoretically impossible for them to be stolen. I am engaged in a business that is licensed by the federal government, the state, and the municipality it is located in. Every inspection I have ever had has always been clean as a whistle. Yet if someone were to steal from our inventory, even if we reported that theft immediately, some on these boards would hold me accountable, That is insane.
Man, wading through all this straw is quite the chore.
I could probably kill someone with a vegetable knife or a bicycle chain or a tire iron or a wine bottle or an F150, but these things are most commonly used non-murderously. Firearms, by contrast, are specifically designed for violence and destruction. It is their raison d’être. As such, they need for careful management of them is extreme.
The first line of defense is to not advertise them. If people know you have or are likely to have guns, there is more of an inclination for someone to steal them. You protest, but, stop treading on my first amendment right to express myself. Well, free speech does not come for free. You have to bear the cost that your braggadocio may incur. A poor person can keep their gun secure simply by keeping it out of sight, unspoken of.
This train of thought is not very different from how cars are treated. I’m not saying you are on the hook for that gun forever. But until you provide paperwork showing transfer of ownership or a police report of the theft the gun should be your (or your insurance’s) problem. And yes, opening up manufacturers to be liable for guns that were sold through a back door is part of the idea. Making dirty little wars too expensive for gun manufacturers would be a lovely side effect. (I understand this will have little effect of weapons made outside any participating jurisdiction)
(Disclaimer: I’m not in the USA. I think you guys are all insane for allowing the amount of violence you have in your country — roughly 100x what we have here, to be fair: traffic is 4x more deadly in the USA than it is here: I guess you don’t value human life as we do)
Ok, so you believe that a poor person would have no liability if their guns were stolen and they didn’t talk about owning guns. Does that work for middle class or wealthy people?
Well, it took longer than you thought. . .
But it didn’t become any better of an argument.
@eschereal, do you think that most guns are used murderous?
There are about 400 million guns in the United States with about 40 thousand gun deaths or about 0.01% of guns are involved in a death (probably a smaller number due to some guns killing more than 1 person) while there are 284 million vehicles and 38 thousand vehicle deaths also about 0.01% (with the same caviot as before). At best you can say that a gun is as likely to be used for death as a car is though if we pull out suicides cars are much more likely to kill someone else then guns.
Shooting people is probably the 3rd most common use for guns and hardly their reason for existing.
I don’t get this comment. Do you think Smith and Wesson or Glock is selling guns to war lords directly “out their back door”? That would mean some kind of black market scheme that they are keeping off of their books. I would guess the US government does more selling of arms into dirty little wars then all of the arms manufacturers do directly.