Not every gun can be kept in a safe. Even assuming I have room for a safe in my bedroom I’m not going to want to be fumbling for the combination when a burglary starts.
Right, in the real world, but in pkbites’ hypothetical, he’s talking about a world where all of the gun-control advocates’ desires have been granted, which I would presume includes gun safes (but apparently not trigger locks, because they’re wimpy and ineffective). So, to expand on his hypo, if you buy a gun, it goes in a safe.
And, I’m still wondering why people buy gun safes if they’re easily circumvented.
All this is to try to district from the fact they cannot answer my question in Post 68.
The majority of criminals get their weapons through illegal means. All of the regulations the antis suggest will have no effect on that, and are just more means towards their goal of disarming everyone.
People who would like to ban and/or confiscate some/all firearms, particularly firearms that citizens already owned.
Of course that makes them sound more reasonable. Later on they add restrictions and regulations and eventually we end up with gun ban and/or confiscation.
Yes and no. Yes, when they claim they only want regulation/restrictions but never a ban. No, when you tease out what regulations/restrictions they ultimately want. Then in my experience with 3 of them at least they clam up, slink away, refuse to answer questions, make jokes. Basically anything that conceals what they really want.
I think they are all consciously aware that they want a lot more then they are asking for right now. Right now “assault weapons” and “hi-cap magazines” are in the news, but they all know handguns result in more deaths, so they are riding the current bandwagon, hoping to get a little now, and more later. They hate the slippery slope accusation put forth by pro gun advocates, but they know it’s legit so they obfuscate as needed so they can continue to dismiss the slippery slope argument. My guess is they want to get as many gun owners as possible to accept current proposed regulations/restrictions, which is but a step in the right direction, and they know they could not do so if they were honest/OPEN with their ultimate desires.
Each time some group with guns massacres another group without guns I hope it continues to push back the tipping point. You think that’s going to stop? I’d love to think so. However I don’t.
You sound like Neville Chaimberlain.
So, as I tried to reply to your question in post 68, if one of the controls that gun-control advocates would like to put into place is a requirement that all guns be kept in safes, how would that not prevent gun crimes from occurring?
I realize it’s not a realistic control, but yours isn’t a realistic question, either.
I have “safes” (more like cheap gun cabinets) just to keep the occasional kid or incompetent adult out.
My safe is pretty heavy and bolted to the floor and I think pretty secure. The trigger locks are of varying quality, some might work if used but I honestly don’t know anyone who uses one. Most all the serious shooters I know have gun safes.
Of course as others have mentioned, you really don’t want you “nightstand” gun locked in your safe when you are home.
For those uninterested in clicking through: it’s a cartoon with four frames. In the first, a man holding a bat stands over a corpse, an observer says, outraged, “You beat him? What’s the matter with you?”
In the second, nearly identical image, the man is holding a garrotte; the outraged observer says, “You strangled him? What’s the matter with you?”
The third nearly identical image has the murderer holding a knife. “You stabbed him? What’s the matter with you?”
And the fourth, a gun: “You shot him? We have to do something about guns!”
And you know this…how, exactly? Did you intercept one of their secret decoder rings? You are telepathic? Or did you get your information from an absolutely reliable source? May we ask whom? What evidence did they offer you to bring you to this extraordinary conclusion?
Lot more like Willie Nelson, actually. I just don’t type with an accent.
What is “illegal means” - and I presume you have a cite to back that up? Why is there a need to steal a gun, when they are so easy to buy legally?
If most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e stolen) - doesn’t that make the argument for proper storage that much more “solid”? Just how much would you need to reduce the incidence of stolen guns by to make it worthwhile? 30%? 50%?
To me, what registration does is
- Allow us to make sure guns are stored “properly”
- Helps us to stop people that shouldn’t have guns from buying them - at the moment, anybody can buy a used gun, whether they should have one or not. Wouldn’t it be a good thing to stop this? Sure, its going to be a long process (but I bet not as long as some are suggesting here), but at some point, don’t you want to make the effort? And remember, once registration of guns to an owner is required, I bet that the confiscation rate is going to be through the roof - for people that don’t have their guns legally. Every single time someone is caught with an unregistered gun, then that’s another gun off the streets - one that they have to try and replace somehow. But at the same time, “illegal” guns are getting harder to replace.
The black market price will go up - which will make it less desirable to use a gun in crime.
I would also couple it to more severe penalties if you commit a crime with a gun - and the mere possession of an unregistered gun, if you are stopped for other crimes, gets you into big trouble.
It wouldn’t. The long-gun registry was a multi-billion failure in Canada. It was introduced in 1996 after a university massacre and scrapped recently.
I just read what you all say, read what questions you will answer, and what ones some of you won’t answer. It really does not take a genius to figure it out. I’d be happy to have a similar discussion with you.
Are there any guns you think should be outlawed? Rifles, shotguns, pistols, or subsets of each?
I can see some possible advantages to gun registration.
-
Make it easier for owners to recover lost or stolen guns.
-
Make it easier to check if someone who becomes illegible for gun ownership-- persons convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic assault, for example-- owns a firearm that must be turned in. If Americans are serious about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, registration would have applications there as well.
-
Allow firearms used in crimes to be traced to the owner.
It doesn’t look like guns used by criminals are stolen all that often, or at least not by the criminal. About 9%, according to this chart. Registration would probably help monitor the secondary market (pawn shops, black market, flea markets), which looks to be a significant source of weapons used in crimes. Registration could also help to hold family and friends-- the single largest source on the chart-- accountable for allowing firearms to fall into the hands of criminals.
Bricker, if strangulation, blunt objects, and knives were used in mass murders as frequently as guns and if they had a similar body count, there would be calls for regulation. And, of course, there are regulations on knives, switchblades being the best-known example.
Probably he just read one of BobLibDem’s posts.
How easy a gun safe is to circumvent depends on the type of safe. People with large, expensive gun collection often invest in a real safe: it weighs 2000 pounds, bolts to the foundation of the house, and has the same sort of locking mechanism as a bank safe. Those safes are hellaciously expensive, hard to install (for obvious reasons), and cannot be opened quickly. But they are very secure. Only a thief armed with a cutting torch or a professional safe cracker is going to get into one.
Other safes are lighter, and aren’t always bolted down (especially he ones used for long guns). They can stop the typical amateur burglar who’s only in the house for five minutes or so and looking for the easiest pickings, but can be defeated by a thief who’s brought some tools (like a pry bar) or who can cart the unopened safe out of the house using a hand cart.
The inexpensive quick-opening safes for handguns have to be attached to a heavy object (either by being bolted to it, or by use of a steel security cable). Otherwise they’d be easy to just pick up and carry out of the house. They are secure enough to keep curious kids out, but an adult with a few tools can force one open fairly easily.
So most safes work fine for keeping the gun out of the hands of kids or curious adult houseguests, and they are OK for foiling the average burglar who doesn’t want to be in the house for very long (especially if the safe can also be hidden out of sight), but they won’t stop a pro. And the safes that WILL stop a pro are impractical for most gun owners to own.
All these new laws would make you feel warm and fuzzy, wouldn’t they? Like something positive was actually achieved.
Problem is no law means dick if it isn’t enforced and the consequences aren’t real. My observation is one of the main causes of the crime rate in this country is the revolving door justice system. For example, here in Wisconsin armed robbery carries a maximum penalty of 40 years. Perps rarely get more than 3 for it. If all your ooey gooey gun laws carried a term of 1000 eons yet convicts only got the 30 days every time they were convicted, what good has it done. Very little, actually nothing.
You are aware that only 11 states have waiting periods correct? And of those only 4 have them for all retail gun sales. So there is no way for you to prove this ridiculous theory.
The antis can get bent. This is one fight they cannot win, without civil war.
It is just amazing to me that folks who cry for open minds and will endorse two perverted homos to marry …want to take away our right to defend ourselves with firearms that have been a part of our history since the beginning of our democracy.
:dubious:
I happen to be one of those perverted homos and I nonetheless stand firmly in support of the Second Amendment, assault rifles and all. If you’re not just making some kind of strange joke, yours is exactly the kind of backwards thinking that has no place on the side of those who claim to defend liberty. And let me tell you, you’re going to need the support of pro-gun left-wingers like me, or else your entire movement is doomed to fade into social obscurity even as the fine upstanding conservative traditions like racism fall and die.
If I were the sort quicker to jump the gun, I’d be writing up a pit post for you already, but I’ll let you defend yourself first. I promise not to try to make you gay.
Stealth Potato is right, that kind of thinking hurts the cause.
Stick to the original topic, please.