232
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
232 points (96.4% liked)
News
21721 readers
4088 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Good. This is some common sense gun laws I think people could get behind. You can keep all the guns you want but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable. Maybe more people will not keep a loaded gun unsecured and accessible to anyone let alone children.
Exactly.
People like to scream about their rights, but they forget that rights come with responsibilities.
I personally think maybe we should consider subsidizing gun-safe purchases so people are incentivized to buy a gun safe by making them more affordable to first time gun-buyers.
Guns are pretty expensive on their own, and much like people buying a fancy motorcycle but cheaping out on helmet and chaps, people will skip the gun safe if it costs more than they can afford including the gun.
Or maybe they have to buy a safe and or prove they already have one before they are allowed to buy a gun. We can't take away the right to own a gun but we sure as hell can make sure it's safely stored.
That's sort of the situation in the UK, or at least where I'm at.
The UK also doesn't allow pistols anyway. Which is the first kind of gun that most people buy.
Not strictly true.
Pistols are allowed in Northern Ireland, and are subject to the same licences and regulations as rifles and shotguns.
And there are some pistols that are designed to comply with regulations and can be bought.
A better option sure, but I've been alive in the USA long enough to know that's a non-starter. We're absolutely the country of "You have the freedom to ignore safety precautions because there aren't laws against being a complete fucking idiot and a danger to other people."
Sorry I was trying to live in the dystopian reality we exist in for a moment.
I don't exactly have solutions for what to do about conservatives always arguing in bad faith, so my suggestion reflected a political reality, which is that our system of government treats their lack of education and arguing in bad faith valued as the same as educated good faith arguments. It's wrong, it's stupid, it's backwards, and it's so broken we're literally having to have courts decide whether a President can be a King, actually. But it's the system as it exists, not as much as we wish it wasn't a bunch of bullshit crafted by white slave owners who wanted to protect the aristocracy by only allowing land-owning white men to vote. We're not exactly starting with a system that wasn't a pile of dogshit to begin with over here.
For sure, but at least holding them responsible when someone gets hurt or killed is a start. It’s too late to prevent “being a danger to other people”, but maybe some will learn not to “ignore safety precautions”. It’s pretty minimal justice for someone’s life, but it’s a step
Oh good, the old "no guns for the poor" system. Time tested.
I’m pretty sure there have been such programs for trigger locks
I thought gun locks were required to be included with sales?
I know several gun owners who carry and eventually the gun is just like a wallet or keys, they forget about it, loose it, and drop it on the ground. Thousands of gun owners try to bring their weapons through airport security every year, and most of them just forgot they had it on them.
You're thinking of owners who hunt or shoot for recreation forgetting all the wannabe gunslingers for whom storing the thing in a safe would defeat the purpose of owning the thing.
The quality of gun locks given for free with a purchase is very poor. Properly mounted safes are the best bet. Locks alone don't prevent someone from taking it else where to open it with powertools.
Relevant lockpicking lawyer videos:
https://youtu.be/ke418cAUcPs?si=
https://youtu.be/o0LYD9zgWnw?si=
https://youtu.be/6dF9bsQ50Os?si=
I'm not saying that's acceptable but a crap gun safe would still be better than nothing which is what they had in this case.
Turns out those re-usable zip ties pretty much qualify as a "gun lock" to comply with that regulation. The state of the lock industry is completely pathetic anyway, and guns come with the laziest shit they can muster.
In some areas of the US, it is way too easy for criminals to get hold of a gun: Steal a car, get a gun for free.
I think support for this depends a lot on where that line is drawn. Failing to keep your admittedly troubled children away from guns is obvious (and covered by existing laws, hence the guilty verdict here). At the other extreme, I don't think having a gun stolen during a legitimate robbery should be criminalized, since that's moving into victim-blaming territory.
I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but a parent in this sort situation has some responsibility both from the failure in parenting and the failure in securing the firearm. Makes for an easy agreement with the verdict in this specific situation, imo.
Having an unsecured gun stolen during a robbery vs having a secured gun stolen during a robbery are different though.
Hard to prove if it was secured without some sort of surveillance on the safe. But easy to prove if they have no records of ever owning a safe.
If you have a gun stolen, reporting the theft would presumably indicate that you did not willingly give the firearm to the person who stole it.
The "safe storage" laws are usually pretty worthless just on how they define "safe" on top of the actual problem with enforcement. They're not meaningful in any practical way, as anyone responsible enough that they should be allowed to own a gun already locks their shit down.
People who only lock their firearms away because they're required to are the reason shit like Nanovaults are so popular. They're a good-sounding concept, but in reality are held together with flimsy plastic internals. You can literally pry them open with a knife or housekey, or even just slam them onto the ground to pop them open.
tl;dr: Given the lax legal definition of a safe, using one doesn't necessarily add any meaningful security.
As an aside, I have safes for valuables and documents I'd like to survive a housefire...but I don't have any record of owning them. Were they stolen, I don't think it'd be easy to prove I didn't have them.
Sometimes that is enough. For example think of how poor the locks are on most front doors, how flimsy the frame is. There are many ways to defeat the pathetic security on most people’s houses yet they do actually discourage some break-ins. Many crimes of impulse can be prevented just by making it inconvenient enough for the impulse to pass or the perpetrator to find an easier target.
I’m not saying that is the case here, but I’d like to know if it is.
It's not. The reason I called out the specific Nanovault in another comment was that a friend had locked his (the gun bumped into the internal button to change the combination and it had gotten changed and was unknown, another ridiculous design flaw). Rather than mess around with cracking the new combination, I shoved the blade of my pocket knife into it, twisted it, and it popped open. Literally the same amount of effort/force and sticking a key into a keyhole and turning it, but without needing the actual key.
After realizing how secure it wasn't, he decided to test the other one he had before replacing them. Picked it up and dropped it from about waist height onto the garage floor (empty, no gun in it). It popped open, sending little plastic bits from the locking mechanism everywhere.
Yet, these are generally considered to meet the California legal standard of "a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure."
On one hand, I think there's an argument to be made about this depending on how "secure" is defined, but this has too much in common with the case that promiscuous enough clothing implies consent, so I'll reject that notion outright.
And "robbery" implies force or the threat of force. If somebody has a gun to your head and tells you to give you the gun in your safe or the gun in your nightstand drawer, is there really a meaningful difference? I somebody stabs you then takes your gun while you crawl around bleeding, does are you really any more/less a victim based on where they take it from?
I don't think they're that different. I also don't think there's many (any?) cases where kids are getting their hands on gun where existing laws could/should not be used to charge the owner, as happened with this case. I'm rarely in favor of new laws when the existing ones would accomplish the same goal, were they actually being enforced consistently.
In your example if you are coerced through violence or threat of violence to give a secured gun away, that clearly is different than not locking a gun in a safe or having a trigger lock installed and available to anyone. Having taken some measures and there are several that would be considered common practice and even the barest of minimum is better than not bothering because who can define secure is a false argument.
I disagree. The safe or trigger lock does nothing in this example, making them functionally identical situations. You're literally suggesting making it illegal to be burgled but legal to be robbed, which is an asinine distinction.
And you're implying that not using a safe or trigger lock means no precautions are taken. If the gun is in a locked house already, is that not "secure"? It's as secure as a knife needs to be to not be a liability if stolen and used in a crime. Hell, a locked building is sufficient security for a pyrotechnics company to store their literal explosives.
I also specifically disagree that the barest of minimum (as you're describing it here) is better than nothing (as defined as no safe/trigger lock). A gun locked in one of these in an easily accessible room meets your "barest minimum" criteria, but is more easily stolen than one hidden in a non-locking box in a locked apartment.
I think the better solutions focus on harsher penalties for the theft itself and more laws/enforcement around failure to report thefts.
I could agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.
Not at all: a better analogy is the requirement to build a fence around your pool. You have an attractive nuisance where inappropriate use can result in injury or death. However a fence has been proven to reduce such usage or at least make it clear that they shouldn’t. It may deter the littlest kids but is easily circumvented, yet works
Sure, if you're willing to count my house as a "fence," otherwise the same logic would make you liable if someone breaks into your house and drowns in your bathtub. Of course it's not likely at all, but if someone were to smash down your front door to commit suicide in your tub, nobody's going to argue that's your fault.
I'll agree that leaving a firearm laying in the open in your back yard should be criminally negligent though, so can get behind that much of the pool analogy.