http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/army-veteran ... about-guns

All veterans should support basic criminal background checks for all gun purchases – in stores, online, and at gun shows. Veterans should demand laws that keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers. And veterans should ask for legal requirements for the safe storage of all guns.

In the military, weapons do not get lost or stolen. Losing track of your weapon in an unthinkable scenario with consequences to match. As veterans, we need to tell lawmakers to make sure all that gun owners maintain accountability or face consequences for lost guns.

More Americans have been killed by firearms in the last half century than all fatalities in all of our country’s wars, combined. If veterans are not holding all gun owners to some of the basic gun safety standards that we learned in the military, then we are failing to uphold our oath. Many of us fought for our country overseas; now veterans have a chance to speak up and start fighting to save lives here at home.

Thank christ veterans day is over so I don't have to listen any more preachy drivel directing us vets to "do something".

All vets have some form of PTSD and are therefore ineligable to own private firearms.



Actutally sarcasm is dead and I've heard this argument from various people including some veterans. Sure, some are messed up coming out. But some were messed up going in too.

The fact that I'm a Veteran is irrelevant to the fact that I'm not finding much there to disagree with.

MayhemVI wrote:The fact that I'm a Veteran is irrelevant to the fact that I'm not finding much there to disagree with.

Ditto.

Ditto.

CDFingers

I know we've discussed the background check thing to death here. However, it bears repeating.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
What exactly are we trying to solve for with it? While I'm not inherently opposed to UBC's if there is a way that it can be done such as a pre-clearance number or something similar, what percentage of crime will really be impacted by it? .7% perhaps? The 40% from friends and family won't be impacted, nor will the purchases off of a fence or stealing them.

In the military, weapons do not get lost or stolen. Losing track of your weapon in an unthinkable scenario with consequences to match. As veterans, we need to tell lawmakers to make sure all that gun owners maintain accountability or face consequences for lost guns.

A few links:
27 Rifles Stolen from California Military Base
Fresno Man Admits Possessing Machine Gun Stolen From Fort Irwin
National Guard Members Arrested for Allegedly Selling Dozens of Weapons to Undercover Agents
Weapons stolen from National Guard Armory in New Albany still missing following arrest
Gangs have infiltrated the military and contributed to theft. 2013 National Gang Report
Then there is the really big picture. Pentagon loses track of $500 million in weapons, equipment given to Yemen

shinzen wrote:I know we've discussed the background check thing to death here. However, it bears repeating.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

BJS Firearm Sources.JPG

What exactly are we trying to solve for with it? While I'm not inherently opposed to UBC's if there is a way that it can be done such as a pre-clearance number or something similar, what percentage of crime will really be impacted by it? .7% perhaps? The 40% from friends and family won't be impacted, nor will the purchases off of a fence or stealing them.

I'm more focused on personal accountability for the firearms you own. I'm not opposed to mandating some form of locked storage for your guns. And in response to, "How do you enforce it?", it doesn't matter. A reasonably worded law, backed up by a common sense PR campaign will get more people to find ways to secure their guns.

And one thing I have to say is, I don't have all the answers. But that doesn't mean I'm determined to duck the questions.

ArmedAndLiberal wrote:

In the military, weapons do not get lost or stolen. Losing track of your weapon in an unthinkable scenario with consequences to match. As veterans, we need to tell lawmakers to make sure all that gun owners maintain accountability or face consequences for lost guns.

A few links:
27 Rifles Stolen from California Military Base
Fresno Man Admits Possessing Machine Gun Stolen From Fort Irwin
National Guard Members Arrested for Allegedly Selling Dozens of Weapons to Undercover Agents
Weapons stolen from National Guard Armory in New Albany still missing following arrest
Gangs have infiltrated the military and contributed to theft. 2013 National Gang Report
Then there is the really big picture. Pentagon loses track of $500 million in weapons, equipment given to Yemen

On the face of it, these articles seem to be about weapons that were stolen from facilities. What the article in the OP was getting at, if a given soldier loses their rifle or pistol, it's their ass. Again, personal accountability.

I'm more focused on personal accountability for the firearms you own. I'm not opposed to mandating some form of locked storage for your guns. And in response to, "How do you enforce it?", it doesn't matter. A reasonably worded law, backed up by a common sense PR campaign will get more people to find ways to secure their guns.

Not opposed to personal accountability at all. However, legislation is a blunt instrument. Should someone without children in the house or immediate family have the same requirements as those who do? What constitutes locked storage? If your house is locked up and you have no kids, would that suffice for your main HD weapon?Do we also require that the locking device is bolted down? Otherwise an opportunistic thief could and have just taken the whole thing to work on at their leisure. Even if someone has a high end safe, it wouldn't stop a determined thief with power tools.

Where I'm headed with this is that there are a few different things involved in the locking up of ones firearms. Ostensibly I have no objections and keep mine locked up as appropriate for my situation. Others may have a different situation and have different requirements. Offering a tax incentive for safes would be a good way to go along with a PR campaign. Legislation could wind up having unintended criminal consequences with no real net benefit.

I believe everyone should lock up their guns, unless they are under their control and I oppose storage laws.

I also support promoting safe sex practices, but against someone coming into my bedroom to enforce them.

shinzen wrote:

I'm more focused on personal accountability for the firearms you own. I'm not opposed to mandating some form of locked storage for your guns. And in response to, "How do you enforce it?", it doesn't matter. A reasonably worded law, backed up by a common sense PR campaign will get more people to find ways to secure their guns.

Not opposed to personal accountability at all. However, legislation is a blunt instrument. Should someone without children in the house or immediate family have the same requirements as those who do? What constitutes locked storage? If your house is locked up and you have no kids, would that suffice for your main HD weapon?Do we also require that the locking device is bolted down? Otherwise an opportunistic thief could and have just taken the whole thing to work on at their leisure. Even if someone has a high end safe, it wouldn't stop a determined thief with power tools.

Where I'm headed with this is that there are a few different things involved in the locking up of ones firearms. Ostensibly I have no objections and keep mine locked up as appropriate for my situation. Others may have a different situation and have different requirements. Offering a tax incentive for safes would be a good way to go along with a PR campaign. Legislation could wind up having unintended criminal consequences with no real net benefit.

Good stuff. I agree that legislation is a blunt instrument; many states already have severe penalty provisions for those whose unlocked, loaded, and accessible guns have been found by children who go on to harm themselves with it. I can't say I disagree with those kinds of laws, as I think they are in the vein of laws that hold anyone accountable for gross negligence that leads to harm - and I personally think leaving a loaded, unlocked handgun lying about when children are present qualifies. But a single person living alone with a locked door is a different situation. There are also laws that provide for punishment of murder, and yet there is still murder.

I don't think laws create responsible individuals so much as education and peer pressure do. I think broad education campaigns would be much more effective than laws in this regard. I also like tax, or other monetary incentives for security devices. And then there is the community of we gun owners who have perhaps the greatest power to effect change: speak up when you see another gun owner doing something unsafe. Shame can be a powerful motivator. Uncle bob is much more likely to respond when his gun-owning friends tell him to lock up the explosive stuff when the kids come over than by legislation.

A high school junior agrees.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion ... /75657262/

"We're going to educate you about how not to die, and we're going to educate you about the laws."

Certainly the first clause is all Jeff Cooper to the max, having students memorize, regurgitate, write a short story illustrating the Four Rules, devise a game played with bottle caps and soda straws that use the Four Rules to win or lose, and have the Four Rules etched reverse inside your contact lenses.

It's the second clause where we get to inject some reality.

When you quote the law, you get an opportunity to discuss about why the law exists. You get to find out how difficult it is or isn't to lock up unsupervised guns by reading about , talking with, and researching folks who have locked up their unsupervised guns. It turns out the only downside is "cost." And here is where some folks here have suggested tax credits and other instruments of persuasion.

Laws end up levying punishment and fines. But really they provide an opportunity to teach about safety. "There's a law says unsupervised guns should be locked up. Let's discuss about that."

I'm thinking of a nice deerskin holster to snuggle inside my Bilbo Baggins vest, the one I wear in the winter hanging out at home...

That's the thought this should precipitate: how can I retain the ability to defend while remaining entirely safe?

One does not need to have all of one's guns at the ready, right? Just the one?

CDFingers

I'm a firm believer in that you shouldn't make laws you can't enforce. Yes, people who leave guns out for children to find and hurt themselves or others with should be punished but how the hell does anyone think that safe storage should be checked before something happens? Do they want already overworked LEOs to go around to private homes and check storage without a warrant?

senorgrand wrote:I believe everyone should lock up their guns, unless they are under their control and I oppose storage laws.

I also support promoting safe sex practices, but against someone coming into my bedroom to enforce them.

+1,000,000

I think that using drugs is a bad idea, but I oppose all governmental prohibitions on them.

TheViking wrote:I'm a firm believer in that you shouldn't make laws you can't enforce. Yes, people who leave guns out for children to find and hurt themselves or others with should be punished but how the hell does anyone think that safe storage should be checked before something happens? Do they want already overworked LEOs to go around to private homes and check storage without a warrant?

I tried to make the point earlier (when I was really tired and not in the mood to type) that an existing law will get a higher percentage of people following it than a non-existing law. And I would also make the point that something with a lock, that doesn't look like it holds guns might be a good idea. An old filing cabinet, in the basement, mixed in with the other clutter. A locking cigar humidor in your bedroom that you keep your .45 in. Etcetera. And the now ubiquitous trigger lock.

And at some point I wanted to say this. My parents were anti-gun. There were none whatsoever in the house. Thankfully. I was such an obnoxious little demon-thief back then that if there had been, if they hadn't been thoroughly secured, if the key had been in any way accessible, something bad would have happened. I'm honest enough about myself back then that I know this for a fact.

I would fully support this if there was a tax write off for up to $3000 for a new gun safe.

Or hell, let's hand out free gun safes with your first gun purchase!

TheViking wrote:I'm a firm believer in that you shouldn't make laws you can't enforce. Yes, people who leave guns out for children to find and hurt themselves or others with should be punished but how the hell does anyone think that safe storage should be checked before something happens? Do they want already overworked LEOs to go around to private homes and check storage without a warrant?

I don't think anyone here is advocating random house checks. I'm not, and I'm not opposed to safe storage laws.

Like MayhemVI's been saying, it's about accountability. If you leave your guns laying around unsecured, no one is going to know about it unless something bad happens. If some kid picks one up and shoots him/her self, there should be serious repercussions beyond, "this was an unfortunate accident." Safe storage laws help make sure that happens.

Most people put fences around their pools because it's a sensible thing to do, but lots of people only do it because it's the law and because they don't want to get sued, or fined, or whatever, if something bad happens.



One potential down side is people not reporting stolen guns because that don't want to get dinged for not following safe storage laws. Have to think about that

Greengunner wrote:

TheViking wrote:....
One potential down side is people not reporting stolen guns because that don't want to get dinged for not following safe storage laws. Have to think about that

Another thing is they would have to know you own a gun to know if you were storing it safely.

If a gun isn't tied to a person, who do you charge with unsafely storing it? Everyone present in the household at the time? The homeowner, even if it was brought in by someone else? Most people will claim it was theirs, but there could be enough reasonable doubt cast that prosecution could be very hard.

When we buy a gun in California, we have to answer a question whether we have a safe or some sort of a trigger lock.

Unsupervised guns: there's the culprit. No infringement, no hair afire, no disarmament.

Since it costs money, I'm also in favor of that $3K tax credit for a gun safe. That's fair. No harm--only small economic inconvenience. No foul.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote:When we buy a gun in California, we have to answer a question whether we have a safe or some sort of a trigger lock.

Unsupervised guns: there's the culprit. No infringement, no hair afire, no disarmament.

Since it costs money, I'm also in favor of that $3K tax credit for a gun safe. That's fair. No harm--only small economic inconvenience. No foul.

CDFingers

But if your poor you might be able to afford a gun for home defense but can't afford a $3K safe tax credit or not. Just more inequality for the poor.

Then they will also have to set age limits. My childhood would have been even more boring if I didn't have a gun. I didn't bring it to school like some kids, but I spent many hours unsupervised outside shooting from preteen through high school age; until I went off to college.

If my parents had a gun safe, I'm sure that I would have known the combination to it so I could get my gun out when I needed it.

Is the end intent of the law to set a legal age of 21 for someone to even touch a gun? That seems to be the magic age for responsible adulthood anymore. Though my dad had gotten married, been in the army, bought a house, and had 2 kids by that age.

I'm against the club making any overtures to the antis about any compromises for enacting anymore useless and stupid new laws of any kind. Thats why I let my membership lapse over a year ago.

eelj wrote:I'm against the club making any overtures to the antis about any compromises for enacting anymore useless and stupid new laws of any kind. Thats why I let my membership lapse over a year ago.

We do not advocate political positions. Forum denizens might but the club is not in the business of setting policy. We have talking points. We are not advocating any new legislative priority.

So you may have overreacted with regards to supporting us.