Blogs Jan 7, 2011 at 8:09 am

Comments

1
If people knew they could get a life sentence for improper storage of a firearm that results in a death, perhaps we'd see fewer of these headlines. Of course, that will never happen, because it interferes with a person's constitutional right to improperly store firearms.
2
Ditto on Canuck. If people want their guns, fine. But YOU will be held responsible - both in criminal and civil court - for your lack of oversight with your gun particularly if you have children in your home.

(This is one great thing we learned from the O.J. saga - can't get them in criminal court, go after them in civil court.)

Create that kind of enforcement and Canuck is right; you'd see far less of this.
3
I'll bet you didn't know that the technology exists to block guns from firing when they're in the hands of someone who isn't authorized. In fact, police departments have been following the development of the technology for years now. The only problem is that it's not infallible, and by that I don't mean it occasionally let's an unauthorized person fire the gun - no, far worse. It sometimes doesn't allow an authorized person to fire the gun.

Sooner or later, they'll get the bugs worked out and you won't have anything to bitch about any more. Of course, knowing you, you'll just find something else.
4
I enjoy how Charles obsesses over guns. The lack of simple logic from a person who is credited for being obtuse and logical is amusing.

Replace gun with "car" and then remember that no one is willing to be inconvenienced to make cars less deadly ( lower speed, harder to license, less texting ) and you will quickly realize that all this crying over gun crimes ( which are relatively rare compared to auto crimes/deaths ) is pissing in the wind over a liberal talking point.

GUNS BAD, ANYONE CAN GET GUNS, BAN GUNS CRIME GOES AWAY.

none of these statements are true

5
Changes to social policy?

Like what, for example? What changes to social policy could have prevented this?
6
Responsible gun owners (example: me) always keep our weapons locked up when they are not in our immediate personal control. Period. End of discussion.

Leaving them laying around where an unhappy family member or common burglar can take them is the height of irresponsibility.
7
Nothing good ever comes from reading Charles' posts. Now I've got THIS in my head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooehGnxcU…
8
If every person who stepped foot into a school building was armed, including the children, this sort of tragedy would never happen. The only possible solution to this problem is "more guns."
9
anytime someone mentions "simple logic" my mind replaces 'simple' with 'gut'. I hate your "simple logic" you straw-man you.
10
@4: cars = guns-on-the-deadly-weapons-scale cliche fail. i grow weary of this talking point.

charles, amoklauf shootings are just a weekly fact of life in The Greatest Country on Earth. a never ending parade. no politician will ever do anything about it, but odds are good you won't be a victim if you stay locked inside your house watching TV. and you don't own a gun yourself.
11
3: Or you could just, you know, store the fucking thing securely?
12
1/Canuck: If people knew they could get a life sentence for improper storage of a firearm that results in a death, perhaps we'd see fewer of these headlines.

Likely true. Also, if people knew they'd get a hand cut off for stealing a car, or breaking into a home, we'd probably have fewer thefts and burglaries.

The question is: do those punishments fit the crime (or the irresponsible behavior)? Most people, I believe, would agree they don't. I'm sure that even people who commit premeditated murder don't always (or even usually) get life sentences, so it would be quite a stretch to get much support for life sentences for people who are a "negligent accomplice" to murder.

It seems reasonable to me that there should be some kind of accountability/punishment for the irresponsibility of not keeping a gun locked up if use of that gun by someone else leads to a murder. But I'm not sure what would be appropriate.
13
I blame knitting.
14
@12: Bingo. If we executed speeders, there'd be less speeding. Just because it's true and creates a desirable result doesn't make it good policy.
15
14/Also, I call your Bingo and raise you with Nude Firearm Canadian Bingo.
16
From the referenced news article:
--------
The 17-year-old Butler had been suspended from school Wednesday for driving his mother's car on the Millard South football field a few days earlier.

The teen went home disappointed with the suspension, investigators said, but gave no indication that he was angry.

He spoke with his father — a respected detective who worked the evening shift, and who soon left their apartment for 40 minutes to run errands.

The teen elected to stay behind.

Authorities say he posted a suicide message on Facebook, then entered the bedroom to grab the police duty weapon and two 15-round ammunition clips from a shelf in the closet.

Butler then broke into the apartment's garage — his father had locked the car away after the weekend joyride — and drove back to school.
----------------------
Moe unsurprising evidence that Americans view cars as lethal enough to lock up away from boys, but guns and ammo should be easily accessible. "Well, Junior's going to have a hard time texting and firing at the same time, isn't he?"
17
@1, @2, and @6. You may not know this, but locks can be picked (if mechanical) or hacked (if electronic). Just because a firearm is stored in, say, a safe, doesn't mean that it can't be accessed. The average homeowner can't afford to have bank-level security on their safe, which means that it would actually be fairly easy to get into.

You're also forgetting the fact that most gun owners have firearms for their protection. If you're sitting at home, alone, and someone breaks in, a firearm in triple-locked safe, with the ammo in another triple-locked safe on the other side of the house isn't going to do you much good. Owners of guns have to do a risk analysis about where they store their guns. Just because guns can be gotten to by a teenager doesn't mean that the gun owner is not responsible.
18
the point, i think, is that handguns aren't NEARLY as important or necessary to daily life as cars are, so each death caused by a handgun should bring a greater amount of ire and consternation on our part, as a society, than each death caused by the normal use a car.
21
17: Obviously a gun safe is no deterent if you don't use it. And obviously the officer is not responsible, because he "did a risk analysis of where he stored his gun" and decided the bedroom closet was just as safe as the gun safe for storing his weapon...
22
@17 I see your point but I don't think the fact that no safe is 100% fail proof is an excuse for negligence. A cop especially should know better.

Yes, you could get into my safe, but you'd really, really have to try. As you mention, people have guns for security that they want near at hand, but there are secure solutions for that problem too.

Rights come with responsibilities. If you can't store firearms safely, don't own them.
23
17, nobody said that gun safes had to be perfect. A combination strongbox bolted to the floor (and don't tell the kids the combination numbers!) is adequate. Oh, and don't put a "gun inside" label on it...

If you are home alone and that fearful, then get your gun out of the safe and keep it handy. And when you leave the house, either take it with you or lock it away. A gun on the nightstand won't defend anything when nobody is there to use it! Don't leave it handy for the common burglar to steal.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.