From my cold dead hands!

[Guest Derek L]

So the only way to securely store guns is the way that you store them? - that's what you're saying?

Edited to add: some people do know how to crack safes.

Yup.......With said safes anchored to the floor and/or wall.............

And some people do know how to crack safes sure, but my brother in-law's faulty tumbler required the services of a bonded locksmith, seven hours and ten diamond drill bits to open his safe he picked up at Costco..........I'm sure there are organized crime groups that have access to “safe crackers”, but I doubt a random thief or mentally ill teenager has such conveniences……

[Pliny]

They do but the current ones have flaws, so fix them so they work better. Don't just give up. It will foil some of them. Do we quit fighting cancer and other diseases just because we can't find one magical cure that will completely defeat them?

Liberals would be up in arms(Pun intended)if something effective were suggested. Something about "equality" only NRA

supporting right wing nutbars would be targeted not the real culprits or those who need help.

I have an idea that those that are responsible for these senseless random acts of violence are people who really wanted help and never got it. Not that they didn't try to get help, they did get it, real hard and were left feeling utterly

betrayed by the treatment they got.

Sure there are. It was Ralph Nader's book Unsafe at Any Speed, although flawed in some respects that really got the ball rolling when it came to doing something about vehicle safety and emissions but nothing could have happened without government involvement. These kinds improvements cost manufacturers many billions over years so specific targets have to be set in stages and a reasonable amount of time given for each stage to be met.

Yes. It was Ralph Nader's book that got the ball rolling. Funny, from what you say you would have thought that

government would have done that for us. All they did was step in to save the public's perception of automakers. Nader pointed it out then made the mistake of lobbying government to do something about it. Ralph's book made the public aware

of safety problems at which point sales would have plummeted and the manufacturer that improved safety would have

got the market and those that didn't would be gone.

Do you know why it was so difficult to get better mileage out of car manufacturers? No one cared and government was

happy to collect all the tax revenues they did at the pump. It isn't until the public sector starts demanding something that the government takes an interest. We probably would be driving something other than automobiles with an internal combustion engine if government hadn't profited so well off the industry and protected it.

The only agency which can do that is government. In 1966 the year after his book was published, vehicle deaths in the US peaked at over 26 per hundred thousand population. In 2011 it was just over 10. The average vehicle today produces a tiny fraction of harmfull polutants it did in the mid sixties.

To maintain government is totally powerless to reduce firearms deaths is ridiculous.

They aren't powerless but they generally do the wrong thing. It's all about public perception.

For some they are a necessity but not for nearly as many as maintain they are. I'm not in favour of banning them anyway, just tightening up rules surrounding their ownership.

Tightening up rules? How about the government does it's primary job of making the citizen feel safe so that no one cares to own a gun but can if circumstance makes them feel it a necessity.

As for the rest of your rant, I'll treat it for what it is, an ideological rant that offers no practical suggestions how to deal with this issue.

Not even making laws that people understand and are not so copious and complex that they are only randomly applied? How fair is that?

[Guest American Woman]

Yup.......With said safes anchored to the floor and/or wall.............

And some people do know how to crack safes sure, but my brother in-law's faulty tumbler required the services of a bonded locksmith, seven hours and ten diamond drill bits to open his safe he picked up at Costco..........I'm sure there are organized crime groups that have access to “safe crackers”, but I doubt a random thief or mentally ill teenager has such conveniences……

I wouldn't underestimate what an intelligent young person could do, given enough time; but I disagree that that's the only storage method that would qualify as "secure."

At any rate, I'm sure he could manage to have access to a drill, for example - and his mother did leave the house for hours at a time, not to mention days at a time.

Edited April 7, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

I wouldn't underestimate what an intelligent young person could do, given enough time; but I disagree that that's the only storage method that would qualify as "secure."

At any rate, I'm sure he could manage to have access to a drill, for example - and his mother did leave the house for hours at a time, not to mention days at a time.

Hey, the underwriters laboratory, the employs the best safe crackers in the world, will put their stamp on a safe that under ideal conditions they can’t put a 1” diameter hole in with access to every tool you can think of inside of 30 minutes, prior knowledge of the safe design, or up to 8 ounces of explosives or dropping the weighted safe from a three storey height in hopes of popping it open………but yeah, maybe today’s teenagers are smarter……

As to leaving him alone…….well you can get for said safes a wireless internal alarm, that not only triggers an external siren, and if you have a home security service, also notifies the monitoring agency and will even send an alert to your phone or email……….for one low price under $300.…….

Now would $1500 bucks be too much to ask of gun owners to safely store their firearms? I think not, such an investment is only prudent (I have individual firearms worth more then that) to deter outright thief, but only logical if one has children in the house, let alone one that is bat-shit crazy.

[Guest American Woman]

Hey, the underwriters laboratory, the employs the best safe crackers in the world, will put their stamp on a safe that under ideal conditions they can’t put a 1” diameter hole in with access to every tool you can think of inside of 30 minutes, prior knowledge of the safe design, or up to 8 ounces of explosives or dropping the weighted safe from a three storey height in hopes of popping it open………but yeah, maybe today’s teenagers are smarter……

I think teenagers (Lanza was actually 20) are left at home alone for more than 30 minutes ....

But again, I don't think anything other than what you are describing results in "not secure storage." That's my point.

As to leaving him alone…….well you can get for said safes a wireless internal alarm, that not only triggers an external siren, and if you have a home security service, also notifies the monitoring agency and will even send an alert to your phone or email……….for one low price under $300.…….

See above.

Now would $1500 bucks be too much to ask of gun owners to safely store their firearms? I think not, such an investment is only prudent (I have individual firearms worth more then that) to deter outright thief, but only logical if one has children in the house, let alone one that is bat-shit crazy.

She was killed by her son, too; who was 20, not "a child." To say he was "bat-shit crazy" is to do so with the benefit of hindsight vision.

As to whether it's too much to ask - again, I think firearms could be considered "securely stored" in means other than what you describe. Storage of Firearms for Individuals Just because she didn't have them stored the way you store yours doesn't mean they weren't "securely stored." Which again, is my point.

Edited April 7, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

I think teenagers (Lanza was actually 20) are left at home alone for more than 30 minutes ....

But again, I don't think anything other than what you are describing results in "not secure storage." That's my point.

See above.

She was killed by her son, too; who was 20, not "a child." To say he was "bat-shit crazy" is to do so with the benefit of hindsight vision.

As to whether it's too much to ask - again, I think firearms could be considered "securely stored" in means other than what you describe. Storage of Firearms for Individuals Just because she didn't have them stored the way you store yours doesn't mean they weren't "securely stored." Which again, is my point.

I….uh….already kind of know the Canadian Firearms Safe Storage laws, but thanks.

But my point, is that they were obviously not secured enough………Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but one would think that if they had a mentally ill son in the home, a son that the mother apparently tried to have committed for treatment, well also having firearms in said home, the parent would ensure the guns were not easily accessible or not have them in the home……….Clearly a monitored safe would have prevented Adam Lanza from obtaining his Mother’s firearms.

[Guest American Woman]

I.uh.already kind of know the Canadian Firearms Safe Storage laws, but thanks.

I ... uh ... wasn't posting it to inform you, but to back up my point. One does not have to have stored their weapons the way you do in order for them to be considered "securely stored." Again. I am responding to your statement that Lanza's mother did not have her firearms "securely stored," and you don't know that she didn't.

[Guest Derek L]

I ... uh ... wasn't posting it to inform you, but to back up my point. One does not have to have stored their weapons the way you do in order for them to be considered "securely stored." Again. I am responding to your statement that Lanza's mother did not have her firearms "securely stored," and you don't know that she didn't.

Certainly, Canada’s safe storage laws do indeed have minimum requirements that are open to interpretation frequently by LEO…..With that said, there is commonsense and there is obeying the letter of the law…….Our laws, if followed will deter small children and a common thief with basic hand tools, I choose for numerous reasons to go over and above the letter of the law and I don’t have mentally ill family members, hence being responsible………I have tens of thousands of dollars worth of firearms, as such, I deem it prudent to ensure they couldn’t be stolen without a great amount of effort……..

In a case like the Lanzas, clearly his mother didn’t store her firearms securely, fore events likely wouldn’t have unfolded as historic with her guns…….Cleary she could afford numerous semi-expensive firearms, hence not a lack of money, so why didn’t she have a security system in place that would have deterred her mentally defective son if she choose to own firearms? It's not like she didn't know he was ill.

[GostHacked]

Well why incorporate a set of laws that would be utterly useless……….

Governments are stupid? We can look at the Canadian Long Gun Registry failure as an example of those laws that would be useless. I demand my money back.

I doubt a “gangster in South Central” goes into Cabela’s to purchase a Glock……..probably more so a stolen one out of the back of a van…….Or if background checks were in place and said thug had a criminal record, what’s to stop him from buying it by proxy?

I agree 100%, criminals don't go obtain legal firearms.

[Guest American Woman]

Certainly, Canada’s safe storage laws do indeed have minimum requirements that are open to interpretation frequently by LEO…..With that said, there is commonsense and there is obeying the letter of the law…….Our laws, if followed will deter small children and a common thief with basic hand tools, I choose for numerous reasons to go over and above the letter of the law and I don’t have mentally ill family members, hence being responsible………I have tens of thousands of dollars worth of firearms, as such, I deem it prudent to ensure they couldn’t be stolen without a great amount of effort……..

In a case like the Lanzas, clearly his mother didn’t store her firearms securely, fore events likely wouldn’t have unfolded as historic with her guns…….Cleary she could afford numerous semi-expensive firearms, hence not a lack of money, so why didn’t she have a security system in place that would have deterred her mentally defective son if she choose to own firearms? It's not like she didn't know he was ill.

Obviously you have your opinion as to how weapons should be stored, but it isn't a fact that she didn't have her weapons "securely stored," and I disagree that gun owners should be legally required to go to the extreme that you do.

Regarding his being "mentally defective," I'd be interested in where you are getting your information.

Edited to include quote

Edited April 7, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

In a case like the Lanzas, clearly his mother didn’t store her firearms securely, fore events likely wouldn’t have unfolded as historic with her guns…….Cleary she could afford numerous semi-expensive firearms, hence not a lack of money, so why didn’t she have a security system in place that would have deterred her mentally defective son if she choose to own firearms? It's not like she didn't know he was ill.

The other point would be that Lanza was a little smarter than we give him credit for and may have known either the combo to the safe or knew where the keys were to get in. Could be the reason he killed her before he went on the rampage.

[Guest American Woman]

I doubt a “gangster in South Central” goes into Cabela’s to purchase a Glock……..probably more so a stolen one out of the back of a van…….Or if background checks were in place and said thug had a criminal record, what’s to stop him from buying it by proxy?

This guy walked into the store that sold a gun to Nancy Lanza and simply walked out with one ....

Three days before the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a 26-year-old man walked into an East Windsor firearms store where Nancy Lanza had purchased a gun, picked up an AR-15-type rifle "then, without hesitation ... turned around and left the store with it."

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Nancy-Lanza-s-gun-seller-loses-license-4412088.php#ixzz2PoZuoIRB

They didn't even realize he had walked out with it - or that the gun was missing.

Edited April 7, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

This guy walked into the store that sold a gun to Nancy Lanza and simply walked out with one ....

They didn't even realize he had walked out with it - or that the gun was missing.

Then the owner of the gun shop should be fined/jailed/loss of license to sell firearms. The owner and the staff failed miserably here.

[Guest American Woman]

Then the owner of the gun shop should be fined/jailed/loss of license to sell firearms. The owner and the staff failed miserably here.

The owner did lose his license, but he didn't do anything illegal, so why would he be jailed?

[GostHacked]

The owner did lose his license, but he didn't do anything illegal, so why would he be jailed?

True he did not do anything illegal, but at least he lost his license. Good enough for me.

[Guest Derek L]

Obviously you have your opinion as to how weapons should be stored, but it isn't a fact that she didn't have her weapons "securely stored," and I disagree that gun owners should be legally required to go to the extreme that you do.

Regarding his being "mentally defective," I'd be interested in where you are getting your information.

Edited to include quote

Well it is a fact.......fore if she had them stored safely, he wouldn't have gained access to her firearms and used them to kill children........

As to his mental health, my information has been obtained through various media outlets.........PBS did a real good series on the entire shooting, including the Lanzas.

[Guest Derek L]

This guy walked into the store that sold a gun to Nancy Lanza and simply walked out with one ....

Three days before the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a 26-year-old man walked into an East Windsor firearms store where Nancy Lanza had purchased a gun, picked up an AR-15-type rifle "then, without hesitation ... turned around and left the store with it."

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Nancy-Lanza-s-gun-seller-loses-license-4412088.php#ixzz2PoZuoIRB

They didn't even realize he had walked out with it - or that the gun was missing.

And as mentioned, the store rightfully lost it's firearms licence......What's your point?

[Guest Derek L]

The other point would be that Lanza was a little smarter than we give him credit for and may have known either the combo to the safe or knew where the keys were to get in. Could be the reason he killed her before he went on the rampage.

Then said firearms were not stored safely.........

[GostHacked]

Then said firearms were not stored safely.........

So because Lanza might have been sneaky enough to look over her shoulder, or kill her first for the keys then get into the safe. (how did she die?!?) that means she did not do what she could to store them safely?

First, what are Connecticut's laws when it comes to safe storage? What are the requirements?

[Guest American Woman]

So because Lanza might have been sneaky enough to look over her shoulder, or kill her first for the keys then get into the safe. (how did she die?!?) that means she did not do what she could to store them safely?

First, what are Connecticut's laws when it comes to safe storage? What are the requirements?

There are storage requirements in Connecticut when there are minors in the house, but otherwise I don't think there are any requirements by law - which means, from what's being reported about her guns being locked in a lock box or gun cabinet, she went above and beyond what was legally required of her. That being the case, they were "securely stored."

I agree that just because her son was able to get his hands on her guns doesn't mean they weren't securely stored. Derek is putting his own expectations of "securely stored" on it.

Edited to add:

Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of loaded firearms with respect to minors. No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or (2) carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity thereto that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm

Edited April 7, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

So because Lanza might have been sneaky enough to look over her shoulder, or kill her first for the keys then get into the safe. (how did she die?!?) that means she did not do what she could to store them safely?

First, what are Connecticut's laws when it comes to safe storage? What are the requirements?

You tell me how well they were stored.........And I'll point school full of dead children.

[Guest American Woman]

And as mentioned, the store rightfully lost it's firearms licence......What's your point?

Well, you had said: "I doubt a 'gangster in South Central' goes into Cabela’s to purchase a Glock……..probably more so a stolen one out of the back of a van"....

Just showing that a criminal could simply walk into a store and walk out with a firearm ... or at least try. This guy tried - and got away with it - for awhile.

[Guest Derek L]

There are storage requirements in Connecticut when there are minors in the house, but otherwise I don't think there are any requirements by law - which means, from what's being reported about her guns being locked in a lock box or gun cabinet, she went above and beyond what was legally required of her. That being the case, they were "securely stored."

I agree that just because her son was able to get his hands on her guns doesn't mean they weren't securely stored. Derek is putting his own expectations of "securely stored" on it.

Edited to add:

Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of loaded firearms with respect to minors. No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or (2) carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity thereto that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm

You bet I have expectations on safe storage, and clearly based on resulting evidence, her guns were not stored safely, fore if they were, he wouldn't have used them to kill children with..........She very well may have gone above and beyond the then State laws……….but it obviously wasn’t sufficient, or her State wouldn’t have just prohibited one of her former firearms and magazines as a result of her son’s actions with her guns.

[Guest Derek L]

Well, you had said: "I doubt a 'gangster in South Central' goes into Cabela’s to purchase a Glock……..probably more so a stolen one out of the back of a van"....

Just showing that a criminal could simply walk into a store and walk out with a firearm ... or at least try. This guy tried - and got away with it - for awhile.

He walked in and stole it, not purchased it.......one is a legal method of obtaining firearms, and one isn't.......See the difference?

And to add, due to the store owner not having his firearms stored safely, he lost his firearms licence.

[Guest American Woman]

You bet I have expectations on safe storage, and clearly based on resulting evidence, her guns were not stored safely, fore if they were, he wouldn't have used them to kill children with..........She very well may have gone above and beyond the then State laws……….but it obviously wasn’t sufficient, or her State wouldn’t have just prohibited one of her former firearms and magazines as a result of her son’s actions with her guns.

Yes, you have expectations - but that doesn't mean you are correct in your claim. It's like insisting that someone who got in a fatal car accident was driving too fast because you think the speed limit should be lower - when they weren't going over the speed limit.

Again. "Securely stored" doesn't have to meet your expectations; that they weren't securely stored is your opinion, not a fact.