If it’s unloaded (really unloaded, not that you thought it was unloaded), then it’s not an immediate hazard but it can still be stolen and loaded later. And nothing can prevent people from wrongly deciding to give someone access. But at least unauthorized people couldn’t simply pick up the gun and walk off with it.
By a certain definition of “ready to use”, namely you’re “ready to use” it if it’s your emergency response firearm. Otherwise it’s always a good idea to keep a gun unloaded.
Thanks Lumpy. Yes, those are over the top positions.
If your primary concern is keeping guns from being stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals, yes. What does it matter if the unsecured firearm is unloaded when the thief steals it? It will be a loaded gun in very short order.
That’s one reason why storage requirements (beyond keeping the gun in a safe when it’s not in use) need to be considered on an individual basis. Not everyone has kids, so not everyone has to worry about that particular issue. Plus, there are safes and there are safes. A little kid’s more likely to get into a small keypad-operated gun safe than a similar biometric safe, and both of those are easier to open than a big 600-lb job that’s bolted to the floor and uses the same sort of locking mechanism as a bank vault.
It’s a matter of weighing relative risks and benefits, which are different for each household. After careful consideration some people will choose to store their gun loaded for quick deployment in an emergency, and others will choose to store their gun unloaded for an additional element of safety. It’s not a clear-cut choice. But since a gun safe of some sort can be had for as little as $30, and quick-access models are readily available, there’s really no excuse not to use one. There’s no risk-benefit consideration there.
And that’s a risk that’s not completely reducible, unfortunately. But at least storage of a gun in a safe means that the neighborhood meth addict can’t easily steal guns when he breaks into a house, and has to content himself with less dangerous booty such as computers and jewelery. Most gun crime in this country isn’t carried out by insane shooters, it’s carried out by criminals with illegal guns.
Define ‘illegal’.
A gun in the possession of a convicted felon.
A gun in the possession of someone who has been previously adjudicated as mentally incompetent.
A long gun purchased by someone under the age of 18.
A handgun purchased by someone under the age of 21.
A gun purchased by an alcoholic or drug abuser.
A gun purchased by someone convicted of certain violent misdemeanors or with a record of domestic violence.
Any gun legally purchased with the intention of passing the gun onto someone the buyer knows is legally prohibited from owning a firearm.
Any gun that was stolen.
I’m sure I’m missing a few categories, but all of the above are illegal firearms.
My point is, I would wager that practically every single gun in the US was, at one point, legal and purchased legally.
Once a gun is used in a crime and not immediately retrieved by LEO, it is passed around - either bought/sold on the street, stolen etc. But the gun itself wasn’t ‘illegal’ initially. You might as well declare that ‘all crimes are committed by criminals’.
Because guns are so prevelant and easily accessible, ‘felons can’t buy guns’ laws are meaningless.
At some point, it should occur to people that having 270 million guns lying around is a really really bad idea.
I’d disagree. Strawman purchasing is actually a very big problem; it’s one of the reasons why cities that had tight gun laws (such as Washington DC) could never effectively keep guns out: people would go buy them in the suburbs, then illegally pass them on to criminals. And the BATF hasn’t done much to address the problem (even though lying on the paperwork you fill out when you purchase a gun is a crime).
Define “lying around”.
Is it possible to consider not making any more guns?
Not really. Even if the Second Amendment was repealed or reinterpreted so that there was only a collective right to arms which applied solely to militias (read: the military), the US would still have to arm all her cops, prison guards, soldiers, etc.
Labrador, just wanted to thank you for putting down the restrictions you’d find OK. Would also like to say that I still think a ban on civilian semi automatics is a good idea due to force multiplication. I take your point on handguns, but I already thought a ban on semi automatic handguns should happen.
The problem is that you can’t include semi-auto shotguns. They are the most popular guns used to hunt duck, quail, pheasant, dove, and most any other type of bird out there. That would be a rather drastic measure and the amount of damage you can do with one in close quarters isn’t any different that what you could do with a pump-action shotgun.
I’m pretty sure they’re still legal in the UK.
Thanks for the nice words, Dave.