Is this the new “the elderly are willing to die to stop covid from running the economy”? “Children are willing to die to protect the second amendment”?
I won’t even common on the 2% figure which you yourself admit is based on nothing but conjecture…
Nope. It just seems like your proposal is a dramatic change for very little gain. I expect you to be on the any cost is worth a single life saved side of the spectrum.
One thing about most kinds of “security measures”: the usual purpose is not to render it existentially impossible to gain unauthorized access or use. It’s to make it enough of a time- and effort-consuming PITA that most people will move on to find something easier to screw around with. In the case of younger children, that they’ll be unable to circumvent them just out of ignorance or undeveloped skills.
There is a difference between a 5y/o who innocently stumbles upon an irresponsibly unsecured .38 in the parents’ nightstand, and a 15y/o who sets out with intent to break into the lockbox to get a hold of an AR15 and six full mags.
My proposal is a minor inconvenience (legally mandating something that anyone who owns a gun should already be doing) which will only impact irresponsible gun owners and children who would otherwise be dead. I really have no sympathy for gun owners who refuse to secure their deadly firearms; such people should be disarmed for the safety of everyone else. But it is interesting that you think lives saved are worth “very little”.
Just to review you said:
The first if you’re ok with residential security containers is a minor inconvenience and I would agree that gun owners should be doing that. The second is magic and at a minimum would mean that every gun currently in the country would need to be destroyed and repurchased. I can’t see how trillions of dollars in spending plus magic falls under minor incoinvenience.
Yes, I think a small handful of lives saved at the expense of trillions in dollars is very little we would be better off outlawing swimming pools and we could save many more lives.
His second point includes gun locks which I’ve been told come with every gun purchase in the States.
“A lock on the gun itself, either built into the gun or locked on, or a biometric scanner accomplishes that.”
So, to clear up possible confusion, in our efforts to establish liability or lack thereof for weapons kept in a household with children (or where children would be expected to have access, such as friends, nephew/niece, grandchildren, etc), the majority (near 100%) feels that a reasonably secure safe (including but not limited to small scale biometrics) is sufficient, ideally paired with some form of physical lock lock including those included with almost all new gun sales?
I would want to ask, if a firearm is secured in the safe, would it also require a physical lock @Babale?
I am glad that we seem to have found an agreement on a basic level of security, and agree (and have agreed in other threads) that I personally would not have a problem requiring such for all gun owners, children or not, as we seem to also agree that a reasonably secure means was used, rather than some ideal but non-existent absolute security.
I also have no problems with us looking forward to better ‘on-firearm’ security once it can be made reliable and at reasonable expense to both manufacturer and end user. Although that will still leave the already discussed issue with all current existing firearms, which will take a great deal more time, energy and money to manage a practical fix.
Maybe you aren’t aware of what a cable lock is. They are not part of the gun any more than a bike lock is part of a bike. They do about the same thing as a bike lock for preventing authorized people from riding the bike.
I think there are many equally effective ways to store firearms to protect random children from finding the gun and using it. The gun could simply be stored without ammunition because the effort to find the ammo is about equivalent to defeating a cable lock. In my case, my guns are broken down into multiple pieces and without the knowledge and time to put the gun back together can’t do anything but be a club. That is much more protection from theft and children then a residential security container. Even if my kids did put the guns together they would then have to go get the ammo which is stored separately.
I agree, as I’ve said in this thread, that people who leave loaded guns “hidden” in their couch cushions should have their guns taken away and go to jail with 1 year of jail and a felony conviction. I don’t see how a law that says you have to put a child proof lock on your gun is going to do much to decrease deaths. There are a handful of toddlers that find guns and kill themselves and others each year but the odds of their parents following a law that they can only be found in violation of after there is a problem is going to be small. The the child proof lock isn’t going to prevent the suicidal kid from gaining access to the gun nor the homicidal one from shooting his classmates.
Taking the next step with requiring actual security becomes very expensive and prevents poor people from owning guns. Mom taking her gun apart when she gets home costs nothing and will effectively prevent the gun from being used. Of course, that also means the gun is worthless for home defence. I thought the video linked to by @crowmanyclouds was interesting because it showed a lot of the flaws in the security theater that people want from gun owners.
The Deviant Ollam video? I can assure you Dev doesn’t think properly securing a firearm is ‘’‘security theater’‘’.
No, but he was pointing a lot of the locks used don’t actually provide security they provide security theater. He uses better stuff and showed how gun owners can upgrade.
Because no one is legally required to manufacture gun locks that aren’t just lock-like-devices.
Actually, what was the most interesting to me was that buying and actual safe didn’t provide that much additional security. I knew the residential security containers were junk but I didn’t realize that a safe could be opened in >15 minutes with hand tools. The discussion of lock types and bypass locks was interesting as well and I went on to watch a couple of his other videos so I don’t remember if it was the one you linked to that showed his changing out a junk lock cylinder for one that provided more security. He was also talking about how hard it is to provide an effective lock against a teenager with and internet connection and time on their hands.
If only there was a easily removable gun part that when removed turned the gun into a useless objet d’art.
Alas, no… but a man can dream…
Personally, I pull the bolt. I agree that disassembly is more effective than locks.
Magic? What are you talking about? Either the gun is built with a lock on it that prevents the gun from being fired while in the locked position; or you attach a $30 lock to your gun that locks around the trigger. Like this, but ideally a little sturdier:
Yes, definitely. Just like you always assume a gun is loaded, you should treat each layer of defense as if every other layer has failed.
Look, if someone gets your gun and uses it, the circumstances surrounding the event need to be examined. If you had your gun tucked between the cushions of the couch and a toddler got it and shot himself, you should go to jail and lose your right to ever own a firearm. If you had your gun in a lock, in a safe, with ammo in a separate location, but a hardened criminal broke into your house, cut the safe with a cutting torch, searched your house for the ammo, then went on a rampage with your gun - you shouldn’t be held responsible.
If your kid spends his nights secretly watching lockpicking videos and practicing under the cover of darkness until he’s ready to unlock your safe, maybe you could have noticed what your kid was up to?
I’m going to agree/disagree with you here, so if I sound like a weasel, I apologize. First, where I disagree, I feel that in my household (and this is specific to my household) having the weapons, unloaded, but admittedly with the ammunition in the biometric safe is sufficiently secure for me. I have the weapon there for easy access in the unlikely event of a home break in. I do not feel the time taken to get through the biometrics, load a magazine (or in the case of my wife’s revolver, quickloader), and rack the slide is too long for safety, and gives a reasonable amount of time to avoid an initial panicked response. Taking the additional time to secure the keys and unlock an additional trigger lock (as an example) strikes me as an additional step I feel unneeded, although people are of course free to disagree. For that matter, I know people who will only put weapons away loaded and with a round chambered which I find terrifying, and those who, like @Oredigger77 disassemble firearms.
But (and it’s a huge one), as I said upthread, I would probably have taken this additional step once (see my post # 72) my kids had reached an age where I was okay with having firearms in the house. I am willing to reduce my own access if I am putting the safety of my children first (since I never had any, moot point, but…). However, @Oredigger77 is very correct, kids who are fascinated with guns can find the ways to bypass relatively easily, without any furtive signs, just by looking stuff up on their kindle/phone/etc at night, without making a big deal out of it.
Which brings back a point @Crafter_Man made in #86, in which he points out that being responsible can or should include teaching your kids that yes, there are firearms, no they’re not toys, and how to be responsible around them. Don’t show them off as tactikool or brag how you would use them, instruct them on the proper use and dangers of improper use. It can’t stop them if they are bound and determined to do harm, but should at least discourage the sort of ‘I was curious about them and ended up shooting my brother/sister’ tragedies.
I appreciate the thoughtful post. You sound to me like a very responsible gun owner (especially because you wouldn’t have guns in the house with young children, which is a smart move). Maybe if all gun owners were as responsible as you, I wouldn’t feel like rules need to be as stringent as I think they should be. Maybe someone like you is capable of making the responsible decision to do away with guns entirely when young children are around, lock them behind two layers of protection when older kids are, and only use one layer when it’s just you, or you and other adults. But frankly, too many gun owners are NOT that responsible. Too many would never say this:
If everyone was responsible, we wouldn’t need speed limits. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in.
There is no gun that does this currently on the market and not likely to be one any time soon. That’s what I’m calling magic.
On the other hand if this is what you’re talking about sure I can get on board. So what you really meant was:
Gun owners must secure their gun with a cable lock when not controlled by the gun owner.
I think it’s security theater but it will prevent a handful of deaths each year and the locks are cheap enough that they can be provided free with the purchase of a gun.