Kids Stealing Parent’s Guns for School Shootings. Washington Post: There Ought to be a Law!

(courtesy washingtonpost.com)

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I wonder how many Americans agree with President Reagan’s pronouncement. A huge percentage of the populace see the government as the answer to any and all problems, including school shootings. As mooted by washingtonpost.com’s editorial board:

Even though studies show that most perpetrators of school shootings obtained their firearms from home (in the Kentucky case, reportedly from a closet), little to nothing has been done to address this problem.

There are no laws at the federal level making it a crime to leave a firearm accessible to a child.

Just 14 states and the District have laws that make adults criminally liable for negligently storing firearms when a child gains access. Massachusetts is the only state that generally requires all firearms be safely stored in a locked container or with a trigger lock when the owner is not carrying the gun.

The Post posted the pathos prodding picture at the top of this post for a good reason. Their argument — that a federal law punishing gun owners who “leave a firearm accessible to a child” would reduce the number of shootings “on a school property” — lacks any statistical justification.

There’s simply no evidence that so-called “safe storage” laws reduce firearms-related incidents on school properties. (FWIW, Adam Lanza shot his mother in the head and stole her firearms before attacking Sandy Hook Elementary School.)

Evidence! Who needs evidence? Safe storage laws are common sense!

Yes, well, common sense tells us that safe storage laws — punishing gun-owning parents and others for someone else’s misuse of their firearms — simply close the barn door after the horses have escaped.

I suspect The Post’s editorial board is not entirely unaware of this flaw in their “logic.” Hence their backup rationale for a federal safe storage law.

Safe storage is not only important in helping to prevent intentional shootings but also key in cutting down on teen and other suicides as well as accidental shootings.

How many times do we need to hear about children finding a gun and killing themselves or another child before we insist that gun owners be required to responsibly secure their firearms or face legal consequences when lives are lost?

Adults are legally responsible for their children’s well-being — whether their progeny injures themselves by scarfing a Tide pod or shooting themselves or another children in the head.

How many more school shootings need to occur before steps are taken to try to keep guns out of troubled young hands? What is it going to take to stop buying the fictions being peddled by the national gun lobby?

The only “fiction” being peddled by the “national gun lobby” is that after-the-fact punishment for firearms misuse is ineffective and dangerous to our liberty. That shootings on school property are [yet another] problem the government can’t fix. Believe it or not.

comments

  1. avatar M1Lou says:

    There oughta be a law! A federal law because we need to blanket the country with bad laws! Or they can just let people be adults and decide how best to store their firearms, and deal with the consequences (if any) of their storage method.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      If only theft and murder were illegal, that would solve everything!… *sigh*

    2. avatar Ragnar says:

      If only swimming pools were illegal… There ought to be a law about swimming pool safe storage.

      Think of the children!

      1. avatar binder says:

        There are laws about swimming pools. Ever see one that is open access?

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          Actually, yes.
          Here in Phoenix, every year, there are numerous stories about children drowning in pools that were not properly fenced.
          As required by law.
          Laws only work if they are obeyed. Something that many, many people do not understand.

        2. avatar binder says:

          How many would be fenced if there was no law? How many people would use seat belts. The point is not to prosecute people, but change their behavior. Growing up no one ever used a seat belt. I think the #1 reason I started was the law and the fact that the early airbags could kill you if you were not. I had no problem putting my kid in the front seat of my NA Miata, but in the other cars he was in the back. I not for never taking chances, just not unnecessary ones.

        3. avatar MyName says:

          I wear a seatbelt because of the laws of physics, not the laws of the state.

      2. avatar Mr.BlankyMcBlankface says:

        If only there was a law against drinking and driving….

        Think of the children!!!

  2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Just one more law! One more law will solve the problem….even if it doesn’t directly address the cause. People!

  3. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Our litigation loving society always needs someone to blame and “hold accountable.” Usually finding a scape goat other than the persons actually responsible. It seems the perps in these shootings tend to off themselves, so the media lynch mob needs to get someone else to pay for it, maybe a Bushmaster exec, or a parent, or the NRA, or all gun owners.

    Murdering people is illegal, regardless of the method or tool used. You can make it extra illegal but that doesn’t change much.

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    So if it were a federal crime to not comply with some sort of safe storage law would prosecuting the gun owner bring back the dead?

    There comes a time where any reasonable person should be asking: “what is the point?” Unfortunately most of these idiots are far from reasonable.

    1. avatar FlamencoD says:

      I’m not suggesting there be a law requiring a certain type of storage, but your argument about it not bringing back the dead is asinine. Prosecuting someone for a murder never brings back the victim, so does that mean we should just stop prosecuting murderers? Of course not. It’s punishment for the crime, no one claimed it is anything but that.

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Huh. Hillary “At this point, what difference does it make?” Clinton was reasonable and not an idiot after all. Yet, most in here wanted to deny her the presidency at least on part because of her ineptitude during and after Benghazi.

      The fact is that knowing that punishment awaits you if you commit certain acts does serve as a deterrent. It’s not perfect, because it isn’t the only factor and some people act irrationally sometimes.

      None of that is to say that this specific idea would be effective at. In its stated objective. It wouldn’t, but to dismiss the concept of known penalties as a deterrent to behavior is just silliness. Hell, there are crimes that I would commit TODAY if they were suddenly made legal to commit.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Well said. I would add ignorance of the law also inhibits its ability to deter the act. There are so many laws, that most people will be ignorant of most laws. Furthermore, many laws are so against common sense that most people would never consider that their actions would ever be the subject of legislation. And this isn’t even considering the vast and constantly changing regulation.

  5. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Who was it, that said something about sacrificing liberty for temporary security, not deserving either?

    1. Benjamin Franklin said it.

  6. avatar Mr.Savage says:

    how about this crazy idea, start teaching our children at a young age how to properly handle a firearm, how to properly use a firearm, and what those proper uses are, teach them to use them for good, and pound it into their heads that they are very capable of causing injury or death. my daughter just turned 4 yesterday and she will treat a toy gun as if it were real, even tells me, daddy look, I don’t point guns at people. guess what, I started her into shooting at two years old, and she received her first rifle at the same time. she can run a bolt action rifle, shoot safely (my assistance is always given) and even cleans her own gun. she absolutely will not touch a firearm without permission, I’ve tested her several times. fuck new laws, raise your children correctly and we won’t have these issues, be a good parent and all things follow.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      I knew a single mom who taught her kids well, and part of it was showing what guns could do. She used fruit as her examples — fruit about the size of human heads. She even had her kids draw faces on the fruit first (without telling them why). After the melons had been blown to smithereens, she asked them to imagine those had been faces of people they knew.

      It was effective enough that friends the kids told about it had changed attitudes towards guns, never thinking of them as something to just play with.

      1. avatar anarchyst says:

        The most effective way to teach firearms safety to children is to start them young. Let them handle (unloaded) firearms, under supervision, of course, which will satisfy and satiate their natural curiosity about such things. Most children will remark how “heavy” real firearms are. When they are old enough to understand that firearms will destroy whatever they are fired at, it is time for supervised firearms instruction (range time). Most children enjoy shooting at paper targets, and when they are of age, hunting, if they so choose…

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      I’m pretty sure that your typical school shooter or suicide victim is already well aware that guns are useful for inflicting injury and causing death. That’s kinda sorta the appeal. As for accidental shootings, education of kids only goes so far.

      An adolescent’s frontal lobes don’t reach maturity until about their mid twenties. These areas of the brain are responsible for judgment, impulsivity, and long range planning, among other things.

      Same goes for the limbic system of the brain, which covers a lot of vital territory, but suffice it to say that it is responsible for impulse control, feat and anger management, and is involved in feelings of pleasure and motivation. In grossly oversimplified terms, think of the frontal lobes as the gas pedal and the limbic system as the brakes.

      I’m not saying kids can’t be taught responsbility, nor that everyone is magically made wise at age 25. I’m just saying that just about everyone believes their special little snowflake is mature for his or her age. Yet, just about everyone overestimates the cerebral tools that kids are working with at any given time. Some parents come to regret their misplaced trust. Training, absent any physical restrictions on guns whatsoever, is probably inadequate.

      As always, that’s not to say that it’s the government’s role to come in with some universal and heavy handed law to save the day.

    3. avatar Alton Gayle says:

      You absolutely have it right! My daughter now 27 knew where all my guns were. She never touched them. I’ve been to the range with her several times. Her and her now husband have both been taught to handle firearms safely. Also IMO if we want to stop school shootings then we need to get rid of all the “gun free zone” nonsense and train and arm the staff and teachers. Once anyone with “EVIL” intentions understands that they will face immediate armed resistance then these kinds of incidents will stop!!!

      1. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

        I learned from a friend a couple years ago that the fucked up liberal that was hired years later after I graduated HS not only tore down our indoor shooting range, but disbanded the HS shooting team and trashed all the shooting awards we had earned that were in a display case without contacting team members! And after watching the SOTU address and seeing the total outright disrespect and reactions of the ALL the democrats and liberals, I have come to the conclusion, the only good ones are DEAD ONES! They now belong in the same category as islamic trash!

    4. avatar Dave M says:

      Are you crazy, being an actually PARENT teaching your children responsibility? Goes against everything the left believes in.

      1. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

        The Republican Brian Curran on LI REFUSED TO PROMOTE THE EDDY EAGLE SAFETY PROGRAM TO SCHOOLS I GAVE HIM RIGHT AFTER THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTINGS! What does that say? In fact, I sent numerous Republican reps and Dumbassocrat reps a fully detailed solution that included mandatory firearms safety training using the Eddy Eagle curriculum, increased radio and camera surveillance in schools, armed guards, bullet proof glass on all entry doors into schools, video and comm links to local LEAs and more. The response was everything from ZERO to “that will cost too much!” Now mind you, that is the universal response of Dumbassocratic, Liberal and Republican polecats I wrote! The only thing these polecats will ever understand is a direct violent assault on them, their families or their schools before they will change! It would appear they only settle for higher body counts in schools to push agendas that will not work!

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Lock your gats up when you’re not around especially with kids in the home. Nancy Lanza paid a pretty steep price for her indulgence of her deranged spawn. No I don’t think you need a law…

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Not so much a law, but a educational campaign could not hurt. I know enough adults that could use a refresher or two when it comes to safe firearm handling.

  8. avatar Owen says:

    Right. We need a law to lock up the guns. Then a law to lock up the keys to the locks that lock up the guns. Then a law to lock up the keys, to the locks that lock up the keys to the locks that lock up the guns… this is their broken logic.

    As any parent knows. If I can unlock it, so can my child, who is probably smarter than me.

    How about instead we add the new “mandatory-seat-belt” type law . Everyone must carry a gun to protect themselves and the innocent. For the children!

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Funny how you’re brought up mandatory seat belt laws. Guess that law never worked 😉

      1. avatar ironicatbest says:

        Seat belts , If I’d have been wearing my seat belt I would have drowned when my truck crashed and flipped upside down in the bottom of a river. Seat belts do not prevent accidents.

        1. avatar meadowsr says:

          anecdote ≠ data

        2. avatar binder says:

          You do know that the number one reason people drown in a car is that they are knocked out when it goes into the water. Seat belts do not prevent accidents, they to increase the rate of survival and greatly reduce the rate of injuries.

        3. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

          I will disagree with you on that one! I have been in an accident where my seat belt and the air bag both prevented me from serious injury. I have also seen first hand when a taxi driver not wearing a seat belt was thrown into his windshield and knocked unconscious!
          We lost a classmate in HS back in 70 when she was thrown through the windshield of her car! So ASSHOLE, YOU LIE! I always carry a rescue knife in my truck and my wife’s car that will cut any seat belt in an accident for any reason!

        4. avatar anarchyst says:

          Old Fur Trapper…Your childish response and name-calling to Ironacatbest over his experience with seat belts exposes your own immaturity and lack of common sense.
          Yes, seat belts DO work MOST OF THE TIME. And yes, I do use them most of the time. However, there are instances where they DO contribute to death of drivers and vehicle occupants.
          Witness the Canadian “ice road truckers” who routinely drive semis over frozen lakes. They routinely drive over these lakes NOT wearing a seat belt and holding the driver’s door open, just in case…. Wearing a seat belt in those situations is a recipe for death if the ice breaks.
          I was in a severe crash in which a garbage truck in an adjacent lane flipped and crushed the driver’s side cab of my truck down to seat level. I was able to “slide over” in time to avoid being crushed. IF I had been wearing my seat belt, I would not be writing this response to your post today.
          Old Fur Trapper, you need to GROW UP!

  9. avatar Roymond says:

    The only legitimate version of such a law would cover only guns not in use, and “in use” would have to include “stashed to be available in case of intruder”.

    But of course that’s not what they want — they’re in favor of people being victims.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Available should be on your hip.

  10. avatar Gman says:

    Were there any such laws when I was young (1960-1970’s)? Were there any school shootings? Did I take my rifle to High School for Team practice twice a week in winter, on the bus, in NY? What we need to do as a society is deal with the underlying causes. Liberal zero tolerance policies are producing kids with no real world coping skills. More kids are being raised in single parent households. Big Pharma is flooding the streets with SSRI’s and Opioids. This is a sociological issue, not an access to firearms issue. But those are tough issues to deal with and Big Pharma lobbies at 100 fold the NRA so no politicians are going to kill the cash cow.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      +1 right here

  11. avatar Gman says:

    Relative to the number of kids who get a gun from their parents and shoot up a school, how many kids get a gun from their parents to protect themselves in their own home? I wonder. But that thought would never enter these folks mind.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    Don’t lock up the guns. Lock up the kids. Otherwise, the spawns of satan who are shooting up schools will find a way.

    And no, I’m not talking about pre-crime. Every one of the school shooters either told people that they were going to do it or otherwise advertised their vicious intentions. And nobody did anything.

  13. avatar Defens says:

    Perhaps a more directly effective law would be to treat Ritalin and other mood-altering drugs with the same degree of urgency as the current “War on Opiods.” Kids (and adults) who are drugged out of their skulls are less likely to commit these acts – although correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, the number of people who have committed mass murders while under the influence of prescription, mood-altering drugs shouldn’t be ignored. And the rest of us shouldn’t be punished for their acts.

  14. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    So, if all firearms have to be locked up, how does a 14 year-old baby sitter protect him/herself and the children under his/her care when a violent scumbag comes calling?

    Think that doesn’t happen? Not only do violent attackers strike when teens are baby sitting, those teen baby sitters have actually used firearms to drive-off their violent attacker and successfully protect the children under their care.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      Or themselves.

  15. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Damn PEOPLE leaving Matches, lighters, kitchen knives and Flatware, car keys 🔑, power tools, dangerous household appliances and chemicals, etc., etc… Accessible…There ought to be a law to prevent this !!! Bwhahahaha !!! Talking points for closet Nazi’s, control freaks, angry 😠 girl friends & wives, abusive bosses, adversarial Neighbors, SJWs, Snowflakes ❄, The DNC, and the rest of Big Government run amok……

  16. avatar Jon in CO says:

    So, the left is now a fan of victim blaming? Wow, how short sighted of them.

    It’s the fault of the burglarized, robbed, or stolen from. Yes. Victim blaming is good.

  17. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    There ought to be a law to prevent FAKE NEWS from Left-Wing News Media outlets! A law stating that corporate news media outlets must have their news reports fact checked by other peer groups, and outlets outside of their political sphere of influence…Or the report doesn’t become public…Or is rejected if the other fact checking outlets from other peer groups disagree….

  18. avatar achmed says:

    I agree, not sure a new law is needed. But does anybody know, what does typically happen legally to for example to Dillon Kliebold’s parents? If you raise a kid that does not understand right and wrong, allow access to a gun, and then said kid shoots up a school I’d like to see you face punishment of some type. Does not mean federal safe storage law. I assume this would be negligent entrustment but not sure.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      In that incident, they didn’t get their guns from home. At least one was 18 and able to buy long arms, but had a girlfriend straw purchase one anyway. They got a handgun from a 3rd party sale, and the seller was prosecuted and convicted. They also had pipe bombs and propane tanks that they were trying to use to blow up the school.

  19. avatar Cesare says:

    Even for the WaPo that is lame. Secure gun storage? You mean like the combination gun safe the woman had in Newtown Conn? That did a great job. Funny thing about that incident, I seem to recall that putting 4 into Mom at close range while she sleeps is against some number of laws and oddly didn’t seem to have any effect on the perpetrator whatsoever.

  20. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The federal government doesn’t have the authority to pass a ‘safe storage’ law. It certainly wouldn’t fit under the commerce clause since there’s no commerce here to regulate. Not that the federal government would ever pass an unconstitutional law…

    Also, WaPo should google ‘Merced Pitchfork Massacre’.

  21. avatar Fred Lead says:

    There needs to be education on what a law is and what it actually does. Most people seem to believe the myth that laws make you do something or stop you from doing something. This is a lack of education and empathy because most people can’t imagine someone would not follow the law. Meanwhile they get to spout their intolerance of legal gun ownership under the guise of “common sense”. Here’s another mythbuster, common sense is often completely wrong.

  22. avatar Warlocc says:

    Besides, don’t we have negligence laws already?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      The law doesn’t work, therefore we need more of it.

  23. avatar Ogre says:

    This from the leftie loonies over at Prada-on-the-Potomac does not surprise me. They’ve been at it for years under the premise that if one tells a lie often enough, it will become the truth. Of course, the progressive Marxists at WaPo have long worked to change the U.S. from a country where “if it isn’t expressly prohibited, people are free to do it” to “if it isn’t expressly permitted, it’s prohibited.” All under the Post’s benevolent guidance, of course. It’s hard to believe that when the Washington Post was founded in the 19th century, it was considered a conservative newspaper.

  24. avatar anarchyst says:

    There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

    • 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
    • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
    • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
    • 3% are accidental discharge deaths

    So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
    • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
    • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
    • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
    • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

    So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

    This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

    Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

    Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.

    But what about other deaths each year?
    • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
    • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
    • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

    Now it gets good:
    • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

    • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides……Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

    So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple.:
    Taking away guns gives control to governments.

    The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

    Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

    So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

    Remember, when it comes to “gun control,” the important word is “control,” not “gun.”

    1. avatar binder says:

      OK, let me give you a little hint. Laws are typically written as RESPONSE to a problem. I hate that people claim that guns laws don’t work because places with high crime have strict laws so they must not work. How about the laws are a response to problem. You can say, look Arizona and Montana have high speed limits, so the 55 mph limit in LA must not work because they have more car deaths.

  25. avatar D. in OR says:

    Parental Liability.

  26. avatar CarlosT says:

    So you have safe storage laws. Here’s what that looks like to your school shooter:

  27. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Parent responsiblity to teach kids better morals and ethics. No child should feel the need to take a gun to school, to right a wrong.

  28. avatar Raoul Duke says:

    This isn’t a gun problem, this is a society problem.

    -Too many parents not being parents
    -Too many kids on pharmaceuticals yet never a peep about them from the establishment. I wonder why? Oh yeah, billions in lobbying money.
    -Too much snowflake indoctrination and “everyone is equal”. Equality of outcome is a myth.
    -There are going to be people more attractive than you
    -There are going to be people more wealthy than you
    -There are going to be people who are more charismatic, have a better situation in life, smarter, etc.
    There is always going to be someone better at something than you. Life isn’t fair. Deal with it. Life is what you plan to do with your deficiencies and it is the only way to come out on top. Some people are predisposed to keep going and make something out of their handicaps. Sadly most are too apathetic and just wallow their lives away in self-pity which is why we have big government. A large dependency culture is responsible for this.

    1. avatar binder says:

      More like “everyone is equal” under the law. Helps keep down revolutions.

  29. avatar Matt says:

    Seems people forget about Civil Codes most of the time when they think about legislation here. A number of states have Parental liability laws for the willful discharge of a firearm, or the injury of another by a minor. In California that would be 1714.3, which could impose a penalty on the parents of up to 60,000 dollars. Additionally, if you know your child is violent or has violent tendencies you could also be liable in Civil court for your kids actions. While there isn’t a lot of case law here for these types of Civil penalties, this is roughly the point of Civil law. Don’t regulate it or make it a crime, but if something can be predicted based on prior behavior or negligent action the monetary penalty should make one correct their actions.

  30. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

    Like my father before me, we learned to shoot a the age of five. WE knew not to steal firearms. I taught my kids to shoot full size black powder rifles from age 5 and up. NONE of my firearms were locked up while they were growing up. I had flintlock pistols on bookshelves, rifles and shotguns in my gun case and more. NEVER DID I HAVE A PROBLEM! By the age of 16 I had given my daughters their own blackpowder rifles, knives, tomahawks, fire starting kits, powder, ball and accessories. My son got his shotgun at 10 yr. NO FUCKING LAW WILL PREVENT A KID FROM STEALING A FIREARM IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO! I have read stories where teenagers even used cutting torches to open gun safes to steal firearms. Some have killed their parents to do so. So to you shitheads that believe one more gun law will stop it, BE AFRAID, VERY AFRAID!

  31. avatar MyName says:

    I agree. It should be illegal to steal a gun and murder someone with it.

    (that’s what they want, right?)

  32. avatar phil evans says:

    YES, YES, YES,
    parents who are responsible for their children’s food and shelter and safety and MUST be held accountable for child’s misdeeds.
    i taught state sponsored hunter education/hunter safety course for 7 years(1K+passed).
    from my observations parents and child who showed up for the course were responsible for their children.
    to purchase a firearm a person must go through a serious education course
    on firearms – thereafter no registration no keeping names, no addresses, no serial numbers.

  33. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “What is it going to take to stop buying the fictions being peddled by the national gun lobby?”

    One of the standard lines of both the NSSF (the actual gun industry lobby) and the NRA (the largest gun owner lobby) is safe storage. The NRA is the only actual gun safety organization that I hear about outside of the gun community. The gun lobby is the only one that offers actual common sense firearms policy: education.

    Point being, it isn’t the “gun lobby” that is peddling dangerous fictions about guns.

    1. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

      You appear to both damn what you call the “gun lobby” for spreading misinformation and yet defending them? Which is it? The truth is, that even guns locked up in safes are “not safe!” Sandy Hook proved that along with at least two other incidences I know of where cutting torches were used to break in and steal the arms later used in school shootings. And the downside is no matter how law abiding the owner is an pays due diligence to secure the firearms, it will fail him when HE NEEDS his firearm the most and can’t access it due to non availability in a safe. It is the anti gun lobby pedaling the fictions!

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “You appear to both damn what you call the “gun lobby” for spreading misinformation and yet defending them?” I disagree that taking steps, that can be defeated, to secure something is a fool’s errand. I think we also disagree that securing something for storage and making it inaccessible to authorized users are the same thing. I agree with the NRA and NSSF that guns shouldn’t be left where unauthorized users have easy access to them. I also agree with them that children should be educated to make them safe around guns. If those positions are damnable, then consider me damned.

        “Sandy Hook proved that along with at least two other incidences I know of where cutting torches were used to break in and steal the arms.” Lanza had access to firearms. He accessed firearms then killed his mother. The Sandy Hook case proves nothing in regards to safe storage. The fact that no security system is perfect is not an excuse to put firearms that are ready to fire in a toy bin “cuz someone could have gotten to them in a safe.” Use some actual common sense.

        The NRA promotes storing firearms that are not in use where unauthorized people don’t have access to them. They don’t specifically say in a safe. There are plenty of ways to have quick access to a firearm that isn’t in use. Furthermore, a firearm on your person is a firearm in use.

        My points were that the gun lobby isn’t spreading fictions, especially about storage of firearms, the industry lobby and the biggest, not only, owner lobby specifically advocate education and safe practices, and the so called “gun safety” organizations are the liars.

        1. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

          On Sandy Hook, Lanza first killed his mother to gain access to the guns. On storage and access there is a wide divide. Certainly we both agree with the NRA and NCCA on storage of firearms and reasons why. But access when needed is also a critical consideration to protect your life and your home. It does no good to store your firearm in a complicated safe in one place of house and the ammo in another just to appease those demanding it be done that way. I would never do it, have never done it, and have experienced attacks and break ins that justified not doing it. My guns were locked and loaded 24/7 because of that. Maybe you never had that experience, but once you do, it stays with you! My kids were well trained in firearms and knew that even though my gun case was not locked, they were to leave them alone unless an actual need to use them occurred. Now perhaps I miscued on your “gun safety organizations” in rereading. Without a doubt, those groups do intentionally spread their misinformation if not outright lies, and that we can both agree.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I agree that storing all your firearms in a complicated safe defeats the purpose of having a firearm for self defense. When I’m home and my safe is locked, I can access my safe about as fast as I can access a toilet (almost immediately). Children can’t open my safe. They also know they aren’t allowed in my room without me, and don’t go in there without me, but I don’t trust children.

          And then, there is always the option of home carry.

          My understanding is that Lanza shot his mother to get to her other guns on his own time, meaning he had access to them.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email