A year after Michigan lawmakers passed a safe storage law to prevent minors from coming in contact with unattended firearms, the measure has been used in 36 cases across the state, with charges having been filed against parents, grandparents, cousins, and, in one case, a babysitter. But an interesting pattern has emerged, an elephant in the room that everyone seems too uncomfortable to call out. Not today.
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald, a Democrat, says that it is difficult to judge the law’s impact as charges are typically only filed after an accident, but also claims the law makes people more aware than they have been in previous years.
“I think the passing of the law is one of the reasons that people are more aware than they were maybe four years ago,” said McDonald
How could you know what people are more aware of or even paying attention to? Let’s look at something more concrete, like numbers that don’t lie. Of the 36 cases being prosecuted across Michigan, 25 are concentrated in just six counties. You might think six counties sounds like a lot of space to cover, but let’s put things into perspective. Michigan contains 83 counties, meaning 70% of these cases happen in about 7% of the state’s counties. I hear the argument already. But these counties add up to much of the state’s population: Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Genesee, Kent, and Newaygo. So naturally, this is where more incidents must take place. It’s only partially true. These six counties account for approximately 49.3% of the state’s population, so a disparity remains, but that disparity isn’t where I hang my hat.
Let’s turn our attention to the most dangerous cities in Michigan and notice that these six counties exist in two clusters that either contain or are adjacent to these cities, where you better double-check your locks at night and stay indoors after dark. So what’s my point? Look at a Michigan election results map when you have a moment.
I won’t beat around the bush any longer. I alluded to the idea that I would be that guy today, and I hate to disappoint, so here it is. Densely populated cities across the nation tend to attract and breed patterns of behavior that many of us living in more rural areas find undesirable, like voting left and committing crimes, two behaviors I don’t necessarily find mutually exclusive. These Democrat-led metropolitan cesspools serve as nothing more than real-life echo chambers and indoctrination hubs where the solution to everything seems to be higher taxes and less freedom.
In contrast, look at rural areas where hunting and firearms are part of American culture and tradition. Deceptive studies will use mental gymnastics to have you believe these areas are more dangerous places to live, quoting per capita percentages, much like I have in this article, but leaving out information about geography and population density. When one incident occurs in a rural area, it throws the percentage a long way, but I promise you would rather stroll down Main Street in the middle of the night versus anywhere in the broad daylight of Detroit.
You’ll find a broader knowledge of firearms and safe handling in rural America that is engrained from early childhood, with children spending more time outdoors, including regular participation in activities like hunting and fishing. We also tend to have much smaller law enforcement agencies and understand that those in the country may have to wait a minute for an officer in case of an emergency. While that last point may also be true in cities due to traffic and overwhelmed police and sheriff departments, we’ve long since taught our children how and when to handle a firearm, preparing and educating them rather than shielding and scaring them. I am also an advocate for incentivizing smart choices rather than punishing poor ones after the fact, and I support initiatives like tax-free firearm storage solutions and would even go so far as to encourage subsidization and tax credits for gun safes and other safety-related equipment and training.
The point is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the country outside of educating our children and our communities. If consequences kept criminals from acting out criminally or irresponsible people from acting irresponsibly, society would be in a much better place than it is today. While I think consequences can help separate those who would harm our communities, time has proven that they are not a universally successful measure.
It is just as neglectful to leave a minor who is trained and capable without means of protection as it is to leave one who doesn’t have the same education with easy access, as has been seen in Kentucky, Florida, Montana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, and countless more. These children and the people they stepped up to defend deserve to live as much as anyone else, so why does the response from the left always seem to ignore education, strip rights, and leave law-abiding citizens vulnerable? Occam’s razor, a principle that states the simplest explanation is usually the best, would say that’s exactly where they want you.
The Wisconsin link is a duplicate of the Pennsylvania link.
Thank you! Updated.
You really think people who live in cities are essentially different from people who live in rural areas? Perhaps farmers are smarter than college educated city dwellers?
I tend to believe that people are people everywhere. Some smarter, some less so. You say that city dwellers are more violent. I submit that it you lived cheek to jowl with 150 farmers, there’d soon be about 50 left and the rest either dead or in jail.
Yes, I do think that there are differences between people who desire to flock to cities and those who find country and small-town living more suited to their wants in life. But there are also differences between people internally within those two groups, so it is important not to paint with too broad a brush. I’ve lived in both but never enjoyed living in the city. That doesn’t mean that every person living there is prone to the characteristics that I describe, but almost all of the people with those characteristics you will find in a city. It is not strictly about education or any one factor. This is my personal experience in life.
There is a legal concept known as “Doctrine of Necessity”, which stipulates that – in the very moment of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm – Man’s law dissolves away to leave Natural Law, and a person may do whatever is immediately necessary to defend himself. This includes a minor or even a “prohibited person”. Meaning, any gun control law implemented by Man is null and void in that immediate moment, for the express purpose of the defense of human life. So if a 14-yr-old accesses a gun and shoots an aggressor within his home, safe storage law does not apply and charges may not be levied against the parent(s). Likewise, an unarmed prohibited person may pick up an available gun to defend himself if an armed assailant is about to shoot him, and the defendant cannot be charged with “possession”. As soon as the danger passes and the need is no longer present, Man’s law rises again and is enforceable, so he would need to dispossess himself of the gun.
Of course, this concept would need to be claimed; it isn’t automatically assumed or applied by a defending atty or a Court. But it exists and is valid.
Haz,
All good points, and worth making. A point that isn’t sufficiently addressed, IMHO, is that . . . personal defense is just that, PERSONAL. What works for me is not what might work for someone else. I would never try to dictate to another competent human how they should act in defense of their own or their friends’ and family’s, lives – not my circus, not my monkey. That some idiot SUPPOSED expert (probably a couple of degrees, zero common sense, and working for the government or a ‘think-tank’) purports to define what is a one-size-fits-all solution for self-defense, and a bunch of nitwit ‘representatives’ choose to make it law, does not mean a thing.
A firearm you cannot quickly access in an emergency is an expensive paperweight. Yes, you are responsible for keeping your kids away from your ready access defense guns – and I taught every one of my kids to (i) not touch guns until they were trained, and (ii) then trained them, as I thought they were able. I know myself, I know my guns, and I know my kids, so . . . I’m supposed to defer my judgement in that situation to a bunch of ‘experts’ and a bunch of elected rent-seekers?? Yeah, not happenin’, Chief.
I’ll MAYBE consider letting the gummint tell me how to keep/store my guns when the gummint starts BUYING them for me. Until then, they can as ‘Sean Connery’ said on SNL “Celebrity Jeopardy”, ‘Suck it, Trebek! Suck it long, and suck it hard!” And this is not negotiable.
When my children were young, I taught them proper handling with a .22LR rifle, as I’m sure many of us were. I started them off with apples to demonstrate how something so small (a .22 cal bullet) is capable of doing. That was fun, but to bring a more serious focus on gun ownership, I eventually allowed them to shoot a ground squirrel. Granted, squirrels can be oh-so-cute when scampering, but they are often incredibly destructive, and CA ground squirrels absolutely devastate hillslopes if left unchecked.
Upon reviewing the deceased creature’s body, I remained silent to let the sobriety of the moment sink in to my child’s mind… Man cannot create life, but can snuff it very easily. So even when the taking of a life (animal or human) is justified, it’s never to be regarded lightly or in jest. Do what is necessary, but do not boast or let yourself become numb to it.
Haz,
Pretty much a hearty “Yes!!” to your entire reply – you are not wrong (the definition of “a smart person” is “someone who agrees with me”, amirite???). My point was slightly different – I, too, taught my kids to handle firearms (I started a little smaller than you did; I started them on pellet guns), and I think all responsible parents should teach their kids the basics (at least) of safe firearm handling.
My point is slightly different – the “how” of teaching firearm safety (other than the necessity of learning/teaching Cooper’s “Four Rules”) is as personal as “personal defense”.
You might have noticed that I rarely, if ever, comment on articles like “Is a .357 a good defense handgun?” or “What should be in your EDC?”, because MY opinion on those issues is? . . . my opinion. And like @$$holes, everyone has one, and they all stink. At a deeper level, the very act of figuring out (i) how to defend yourself/family, and (ii) how to teach your kids gun safety, will require you to do more actual THINKING about the issue than most people ever get around to.
Just sayin’, is all.
Got a good reference for us who with severe research allergies?
Just look up “Necessity Defense” in your favorite browser. Tons of references available.
Do you have a reference, for those of us who are research allergic?
Good info, puzzled as to why it is not cited in most of the self defense discussions and anti gun legislation discussions, as it seems to be an acid test to the proposed legislation that must be passed before proceeding.
An example of how stupid it will get. In New Zealand if you are hunting your rifle has to be transported unloaded with bolt and ammo stored separately, the rifle needs to have a lock through the action (cable lock) and has to be in a bag, this bag has to be covered so if someone were to walk by the gun case/bag is not visible. If you stop on the way to use the restroom you have to take the bolt(s) with you, if you stop to eat the vehicle has to be in line of sight at all times and bolt(s) have to be with you. If you live in a city/town all antler sets will have to be removed from public view, the reasoning behind this is that antlers identify you as a hunter and therefor a gun owner.
Is it the water? NZ, I think, oretty much the same gene pool/ancestry as the US. But has descended into prog insanity.
In rural America, we/you ARE the “First Responder”/police. Typical rural Iowa county after midnight has one or two deputies on duty for more than 500mi2.
Why you’d I stop to eat the vehicle?
LOL, Sorry forgot to add the ,
I wouldn’t put guns in chest of drawer look a likes. Crooks look in those for the family jewels and ladys underwear.
Closets either.
Ovens is good, not many crooks are interested in burnt meat loaf.
Attics is a good hidey place too.
Safe storage laws.
There seems to be a law for just about everything.
Maybe they should have a law that let’s people have guns.
Make it A Right To Bear Arms Law
“Make it A Right To Bear Arms Law”
Enact an amendment to the US Constitution.
My own experience that most rural folk are vermin just like urban thugs. They’re justmore subtle.
No way, us rural guys will pull your car out of the mud hole before we steal it.
Looks like the “Bad Ass” upgrade did away with the edit function. That’s likely the best element of the upgrade, remove the ability to make corrections before a comment actually posts. Would one be wrong to anticipate that the next “bad ass” upgrade would be closing down TTAG entirely?
The fact that a person desires to own a firearm is clear evidence that person should be denied the ability to obtain a firearm.
(I have decided to be a professional philosophiserist)
There is a whole other aspect to this that no one wants to talk about, but everyone knows is relevant. I’ll give you three guesses what that is, and the first two guesses don’t count.
No one wants to talk about?
Hey, that’s BS, my wife got drunk on cheap ass Milwaukee’s Best Beer and shit splattered my left leg with chili and yellow slime sauce recycle.
What else you wanna talk about?
No one wants to talk about?
Hey, that’s BS, my wife got drunk on cheap ass Milwaukee’s Best Beer and shit splattered my left leg with chili and yellow slime sauce recycle.
What else you wanna talk about?
A determined professional theif will take what he wants, pretty much regardless of your efforts to secure your property. A druggie operating out of stupidity and desperation will get whatever I just lying around, sometimes not even that.
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in the Heller decision:
“…[W]e hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense….”
All mandatory “safe storage” laws already are mooted.
“All mandatory “safe storage” laws already are mooted.”
If a law can negatively impact your life, that might not actually be a law that is “mooted”.