jkcerda on 10/10/2017 at 22:33
yeah, and laws against murder are the reason why we no longer have murder.............................................. got a bridge for sale :D
Renzatic on 10/10/2017 at 22:41
I still think that's the stupidest argument on the face of the earth.
No, murder laws don't prevent murder. BUT THEY SURE AS FUCK MAKE YOU CULPABLE IF YOU DECIDE TO MURDER SOMEONE!
It's not so much about preventing as it is deterring.
jkcerda on 10/10/2017 at 22:45
like I said, we have those laws here in CA already, forgot how many states have the same laws regarding negligent discharge. still happens here............
Renzatic on 10/10/2017 at 22:51
It's done something. Negligent discharge deaths are fairly low across the country. Though I can't find any hard laws concerning trigger locks. They're more deeply emphasized suggestions than anything from what I've quickly googled.
jkcerda on 10/10/2017 at 23:00
I can support negligent discharge laws, those are a bit different than making "safe storage laws" where trigger locks are required ........
heywood on 11/10/2017 at 00:23
The justification for safe storage has only a little bit to do with negligent discharge. The main problem is suicides and homicides committed by people who got the gun from somebody who didn't secure it e.g. a parent.
The point of having such laws isn't to have cops come in your house and check to make sure you have your guns locked up. The point is to deter gun owners from leaving their guns unsecured by the threat of criminal punishment and civil liability if something bad happens. If you leave a gun unsecured and your kid uses it to commit suicide, I think you should be thrown in jail on a felony conviction. If you lose it because somebody stole it, felony conviction. If your kid takes your gun and accidentally or intentionally shoots another kid, not only should you serve time, I think the family of the victim ought to sue your ass into a lifetime of destitution in civil court. If you can't handle that burden of responsibility, lock your shit up or don't keep a gun. That's what I think.
catbarf on 11/10/2017 at 00:56
Quote Posted by heywood
I am aware of the concerns people have raised about a "smart" gun failing when you need it to defend your home. However, that problem is hypothetical, and it's solvable through technology.
A very real problem is that unsafeguarded guns are often deliberately or accidentally used by people who shouldn't have them, like your kids or their friends. That problem kills way more people than the number of justifiable homicides made in self defense.
So solve the bigger problem first. If you want to keep a loaded gun in your dresser drawer for quick access if somebody breaks into your home, it should have a trigger lock or be a "smart" gun. Otherwise, it should be locked up in a proper container.
Please keep in mind that the number of defensive gun uses outweighs the number of justifiable homicides by a huge margin. The conservative number (Violence Policy Center) is 100,000 DGUs per year, the highest number I've seen (Kleck, Gertz) is over 3
million. You're right, firearms kill accidentally more than they kill justifiably. But they're used justifiably, without killing, far more often than accidents occur. Food for thought.
I would much sooner trust a biometric safe to store a handgun than a 'smart' handgun with biometric features. A biometric safe can be accessed virtually instantly, and if for whatever reason the biometrics don't work, you can use an old-fashioned key to open it. Once it's open you know the weapon is going to work. There is just too much room for error with a smartgun. Is it going to work if I have less-than-perfect grip because it's 3AM and I'm panicking? Is it going to work if I live in a humid area, or near the sea, where exposed electronics tend to degrade over time? Am I going to find that my gun is a paperweight because I slipped with the belt sander the week before and now my fingerprint isn't quite right?
I like the idea of smartguns, but the devil's in the details, and KISS is the core of firearm design and especially self-defensive weapon design. Even police forces with notoriously little trust in their officers (eg New York City, where they stick excessively heavy triggers on their guns because they have virtually no firearm training and a tendency to negligently discharge with ordinary triggers) aren't clamoring for smartguns. Not to mention that thanks to New Jersey's law stating that the instant a smartgun is available for sale, no non-smartguns may be sold, the gun community is rabidly against smartguns simply because of the likelihood that they'll be legally mandated as gun control in spite of any demonstrable issues.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Not necessarily. Regulating trigger locks as a necessity would cut down on accidental discharges at home, and would make shootings like Sandy Hook, where someone takes a gun that isn't theirs to go on a killing spree, considerably more difficult to pull off.
Eh. In my head that hits the 'worst of both worlds' category of gun regulation proposals. Trigger locks are clumsy to operate if you need to do so in a hurry, they don't prevent theft, and they're (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5RjMvzdErA) very easy to break. They present an issue for a legitimate owner, but aren't hard to defeat by someone who means ill.
Again, if we're mandating storage requirements, why not just a safe?
catbarf on 11/10/2017 at 01:08
Quote Posted by heywood
If you lose it because somebody stole it, felony conviction.
I am 100% in favor of increasing liability when a stolen gun is used to commit a crime because it infuriates me to see people be cavalier about responsible gun storage. But, that said, a straight stolen gun = felony sounds like a strong incentive not to report stolen guns, which would hamper efforts to find them, and would also screw over the owner in the rare case of a burglar actually breaking through a safe (which sounds extreme, but does happen from time to time).
I'd rather see mandatory storage requirements, with a felony in the event that an unsecured firearm is stolen and used to commit a violent crime. Doesn't make sense to punish the people following good practice for events out of their control.
Renzatic on 11/10/2017 at 01:19
Even I have to admit that your suggestions are a little too strict, Heywood. This shouldn't be an if/then scenario. The police have to prove negligence. You don't want to create a situation where otherwise responsible gun owners are still brought to task because someone managed to bypass all their safety measures.
Same with a stolen gun. The only time charges should be considered being pursed against a gun owner in that instance is if his gun is used to commit some random felony offense was never reported stolen. At face value, it'd look incredibly suspicious if the cops managed to trace a serial number of a weapon used back to its owner, and he responds with a "oh...yeah. It was...uh...yeah, it was stolen."
Though even then, there are chances, slim though they may be, that someone could be missing a gun, and go entirely unaware of it for months or years. It'd be pretty unlikely, sure, but still well within the realm of possibility.
jkcerda on 11/10/2017 at 01:42
VPC is part of the Brady campaign
