Controversial Gun Law Enacted
By: Andrew Overton, The Bulletin
07/10/2008

Beginning Aug. 8, Philadelphia gun owners who report missing firearms within 24 hours of losing them will face fines up to $1,900 and up to 90 days in prison upon a second offense, according to a controversial new gun ordinance intended to take illegal guns off the street.

"The bottom-line is this: We will do whatever is necessary in this city to end the gun violence in Philadelphia, to keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of those that use them to kill fellow Philadelphians," Mayor Michael Nutter said yesterday at a City Hall news conference.

Mr. Nutter encouraged all gun owners to take an inventory of their firearms and if any are missing or stolen to call 911.

"Let's be very clear, very direct: if you lose your piece, call the police," Mr. Nutter said.

A National Rifle Association spokesman called the new Philadelphia ordinance "a bogus attempt to make people feel safer" because it "further victimizes a victim of theft."


http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19842452&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

Michael Nutter's a moron, as are all the Democrats in the city who voted for him. What does he think is gonna happen when he starts fining people and throwing them in jail for reporting their firearms missing? They're gonna stop reporting them, duh!! This is the same guy who thinks the police should be allowed to frisk everyone on the street without any reason at all. Somebody needs to sit this guy down and read the Constirution to him. I doubt he could read it himself.

What the hell? This makes absolutely no sense; "if you lose your piece, call the police", and then we'll send you to jail? This bit of rhetoric makes me shake my head.

The law is to report your gun if it's missing or stolen. If you're a responsible gun owner, you should know where your piece is at all times. If it's missing, it's irresponsible not to say something. Having this as a law doesn't change that.

The law is to report your gun if it's missing or stolen. If you're a responsible gun owner, you should know where your piece is at all times. If it's missing, it's irresponsible not to say something. Having this as a law doesn't change that.

If your house is broken into and your gun is among what's taken, what it says is that you are a criminal for being a victim of a crime.

The law is to report your gun if it's missing or stolen. If you're a responsible gun owner, you should know where your piece is at all times. If it's missing, it's irresponsible not to say something. Having this as a law doesn't change that.

I agree, so what sense does it make to fine and/or jail a person for reporting the gun missing?

If your house is broken into and your gun is among what's taken, what it says is that you are a criminal for being a victim of a crime.

If you're a responsible gun owner how is it that your gun ended up being swiped by a mere burglar? Do responsible gun owners really just leave their guns in places where petty thieves have such easy access? Is all that's between their gun and a criminal a pane of glass? Is this seen as normal by responsible gun owners?

I agree, so what sense does it make to fine and/or jail a person for reporting the gun missing?

If your house is broken into and your gun is among what's taken, what it says is that you are a criminal for being a victim of a crime.

If someone breaks into your house and takes your possessions, you file a claim with the police, and report your gun stolen along with whatever else was taken.

If you're buying guns and selling them illegally, and then reporting them lost or stolen (which is what this law is intending to seek out and punish), then your gun is used in a crime, it's meant to help find the people who are putting weapons on the street illegally.

The law doesn't punish people for reporting them. It punishes them for not reporting in a timely fashion. I think it's a month. At any rate, for more information, I highly suggest you check out the local NPR coverage of the recent change in the Philly law. I've found it to be quite informative into what the laws are and what the changes have been. :)

If you're a responsible gun owner how is it that your gun ended up being swiped by a mere burglar? Do responsible gun owners really just leave their guns in places where petty thieves have such easy access? Is all that's between their gun and a criminal a pane of glass? Is this seen as normal by responsible gun owners?

In your eyes, the mere act of owning a gun in the first place makes someone a "bad person", so it comes as no surprise that you would support a law punishing people for owning guns. That's really all this law does, after all.


The law doesn't punish people for reporting them. It punishes them for not reporting in a timely fashion.

That's not what the article says. And even if you're correct, it's still a law that punishes people for being the victims of crimes.

In your eyes, the mere act of owning a gun in the first place makes someone a "bad person", so it comes as no surprise that you would support a law punishing people for owning guns. That's really all this law does, after all.

That's not what the article says. And even if you're correct, it's still a law that punishes people for being the victims of crimes.

Exactly.

And break-ins, purse snatchings, assaults, and other crimes will rise, whether you own a gun or not. If a criminal thinks you've got one, that's all the incentive he needs.


The people who will suffer most are the ones who actually live in this city - 24/7, not just 9 to 5.

If someone breaks into your house and takes your possessions, you file a claim with the police, and report your gun stolen along with whatever else was taken.

If you're buying guns and selling them illegally, and then reporting them lost or stolen (which is what this law is intending to seek out and punish), then your gun is used in a crime, it's meant to help find the people who are putting weapons on the street illegally.

The law doesn't punish people for reporting them. It punishes them for not reporting in a timely fashion. I think it's a month. At any rate, for more information, I highly suggest you check out the local NPR coverage of the recent change in the Philly law. I've found it to be quite informative into what the laws are and what the changes have been. :)

According to the quotes from Nutter, from the article in the OP, he states that if you report the theft of a gun within 24 hours, you may be fined.

Either the article is wrong or I'm just hard of reading, but, from where I sit, that is what the article seems to say.

Oh wait, that would be the thing, wouldn't it? In the quote in the OP, it says, "Philadelphia gun owners who report missing firearms within 24 hours of losing them will face fines up to $1,900", but the article itself, provided by the link, says, "Philadelphia gun owners who DO NOT report missing firearms within 24 hours of losing them will face fines up to $1,900".

What the hell, Fennix? My apologies to Saison.

edit to add: I'm a little pissed off, Fennix. You changed the quote in the article you posted to bash some guy, (and maybe he is a bad guy), but you deliberately misled everyone with your editing. Bad Form!

Hey, I'm not the one who posted the typo. I copied and pasted directly from The Bulletin's website. They must have fixed the typo since I posted this thread.

In any case, it's still a punishment for people who legally own guns and are victimized by crime.

^I'll buy that, but I will also reverse my stance. If one is a responsible gun owner, one should be able to report it in a timely fashion. If one's house is burgled and one owns guns, shouldn't that be one of the things that is checked?

I imagine that this law is designed specifically to target those who might sell a gun unlawfully and then, if it comes back on them, (i.e. commission of a crime), they can't skate around it by insisting that the gun had been stolen and they had only just noticed it.

^I'll buy that, but I will also reverse my stance. If one is a responsible gun owner, one should be able to report it in a timely fashion. If one's house is burgled and one owns guns, shouldn't that be one of the things that is checked?

I imagine that this law is designed specifically to target those who might sell a gun unlawfully and then, if it comes back on them, (i.e. commission of a crime), they can't skate around it by insisting that the gun had been stolen and they had only just noticed it.

You're correct. A lot of gun-related crimes in the area are committed with "lost" or "stolen" weapons that aren't traceable. This law intends to find the people who are circumventing the system. Also, all the recent gun laws that were passed are being appealed, so none of them may stand. I think it should be longer than 24 hours, for the record. I think 30 days is fair.

^agreed; there are obviously some situations where the theft might not be noticed within a 24 hour time period, (owner on vacation, etc.), and I'm sure the the district attorney would take such things into consideration before handing down a charge to a responsible gun owner.

...I imagine that this law is designed specifically to target those who might sell a gun unlawfully and then, if it comes back on them, (i.e. commission of a crime), they can't skate around it by insisting that the gun had been stolen and they had only just noticed it.

Ideally, that would be the case.

^agreed; there are obviously some situations where the theft might not be noticed within a 24 hour time period, (owner on vacation, etc.), and I'm sure the the district attorney would take such things into consideration before handing down a charge to a responsible gun owner.

Although there are a number of folks who would say Lynne Abraham is smarter (has more sense than) the mayor, this would remain to be seen.

This legislation, while well-intentioned, will not solve anything. People are smart, even criminals, and they'll find ways around the system. This law is an attempt to solve the problem by treating the symptoms, not the cause. The root cause of all this violence is the people who commit it, not the tools they use to do so. I suspect a large portion of the gun violence in North Philly is drug-related, and wouldn't happen were it not for drug prohibition. That issue is obivously too big for the mayor to confront alone. Unfortunately, the killings in Philadelphia is too small an issue for the federal legislators responsible for drug prohibition to notice, and their constituents lack to insight to understand that the violence is the unintended side effect of their politicies.

In your eyes, the mere act of owning a gun in the first place makes someone a "bad person", so it comes as no surprise that you would support a law punishing people for owning guns. That's really all this law does, after all.

You're a super-mod and you post non-responsive nonsense like this? C'mon, set the bar a little higher than this will you? You took the time to hit "Reply" and, in the subsequent flurry of attack-mode typing, you couldn't simply just answer the heart of the question posed?

Do responsible gun owners think responsible gun ownership enables a lowly burglar to pull open an unlocked, unsecured kitchen drawer or bedside table drawer and make off with their guns? Yes or no?

If he is really willing to do "ANYTHING" to end violence then the simple solution would be to send all the minorities packing. His gun violence would be reduced to nothing overnight.

If you're a responsible gun owner how is it that your gun ended up being swiped by a mere burglar? Do responsible gun owners really just leave their guns in places where petty thieves have such easy access? Is all that's between their gun and a criminal a pane of glass? Is this seen as normal by responsible gun owners?
Are you still trying to make that ridiculous tired ass argument? :nonono:

Are you still trying to make that ridiculous tired ass argument? :nonono:

Do responsible parents secure cigarette lighters, cleaning chemicals and power tools and yes, even guns, such that their children cannot get to them?

Is the Michigan Gun Owners "Safe Storage (http://www.migunowners.org/index.php?page=safestorage)" page wrong when they say:

"In 2002 alone, 254 children between the ages of 1 and 14 died in homicides involving firearms. 86 children in the same age group committed suicide using a firearm, and 59 died as a result of firearm related accidents. Many if not all of these deaths could have been prevented by simply making sure firearms were secured safely. It is the responsibility of the firearms owner to know how to safely handle and secure their firearms."

and

"As a firearm owner, you must make absolutely sure that guns in your home are stored so that they are not accessible to children or other unauthorized persons. Hiding a gun in a closet, drawer or similar location is not safe storage."

When they talk about storing guns in a safe manner, such that "guns and ammunition so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons" and that "nearly all firearms accidents in the home can be prevented simply by making sure that guns are kept unloaded and locked up with ammunition secured in a separate location", are they wrong?

Even the NRA itself agrees, saying "Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons." (link (http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp))

In disagreeing with me that measures must be taken to keep guns out of the hands of "unauthorized persons" -- measures beyond just hiding them in dresser drawers or under mattresses -- you are also disagreeing with powerful elements of the lobby you side with. So the question begs: Are you disagreeing with the logical, responsible thing to do, even if its a position supported by your beloved lobbies, because you really think this way or because I'm also saying it and you simply cannot bring yourself to agree with me?

"Two plus two equals four." There, there's something else you can argue about just 'cause I wrote it. :rolleyes:

This law is mainly there to catch the people who are buying guns, "losing them" or "have them stolen" then reselling them on the street to criminals. There wasn't a way to prosecute them in the past, but this law hopes to close this loophole.

The law is to report your gun if it's missing or stolen. If you're a responsible gun owner, you should know where your piece is at all times. If it's missing, it's irresponsible not to say something. Having this as a law doesn't change that.

No, it doesn't but if you're robbed and your guns are stolen, you shouldn't be penalized.

Idiotic gun laws like this do absolutely nothing whatsoever to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals break laws, that's why they're called criminals, and anyone who think they will obey any new gun laws has to be delusional.

The people of Philly should rise up against this idiotic piece of legislation.

I've been robbed several times, reported the robberies and have never had a single item recovered. The police don't even take robberies seriously where I live. Reporting a stolen gun is to protect the victim of the theft if the gun should be used in some future crime; not to punish the victim of a theft.

Should we penalize people if their TV's and jewelry are stolen?? That would be insane, and so is penalizing them for having guns stolen.

Idiotic gun laws like this do absolutely nothing whatsoever to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

If they give supposedly "responsible" gun owners incentive to properly and securely store their weapons instead of leaving them in drawers and in closets then I think laws can keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Better the guy leaves your house with a PS3 and a few games instead of a PS3, a few games and a Glock, right?

The people of Philly should rise up against this idiotic piece of legislation.

Don't hold your breath waiting for gun owners to do anything they talk big about, like "rising up" against perceived tyranny. :rolleyes:

I've been robbed several times, reported the robberies and have never had a single item recovered.

Given this, do you store your guns in a dresser drawer under some socks, knowing that there's a high likelihood that "unauthorized persons" are entering your premises?

Should we penalize people if their TV's and jewelry are stolen?? That would be insane, and so is penalizing them for having guns stolen.

If you step out of your idling car for just a moment to dash into a convenience store to get a pack of smokes and your car is stolen, do you really expect the insurance company to pony up for your laziness and negligence?

Isn't the right all about personal responsibility? Don't gun owners have certain responsibilities to keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals?

I'm not going to rehash it again, I'll merely restate the fact that if someone has to commit a crime to obtain your gun, then your gun was secure. All this bs of "...all they had to do was sneak past the neighbor, drug the dog, kick in the door, rummage through the entire house and find the gun sitting in plain sight in a box on the shelf in a closet. That's such irresponsible gun ownership." is just that, bs. And for the record, you brought up burglars, not kids. That's a seperate argument.

I'm not going to rehash it again, I'll merely restate the fact that if someone has to commit a crime to obtain your gun, then your gun was secure.

:rofl: This is laughable. Your gun is not secure if all that's separating it from a criminal is a pane of glass and screen door.

You may think your position is cute but it's just retarded. Your philosophy is well and good in the ideological la-la land you mentally occupy but in the real world, gun safes and trigger locks and storing firearms separately from ammunition are all part of responsible gun ownership. Damn dude, even the NRA agrees with me.

Do you store all of your money in your house? Just leave it on the table, knowing it's safe and secure behind that screen door? Do you leave your wallet on the dashboard of your car, knowing it's safe because the door is closed? Seriously, what kind of idiot thinks a gun is "secure" just because a window is closed?? :eek7:

And for the record, you brought up burglars, not kids. That's a seperate argument.

Unauthorized persons can be anyone other than yourself, including kids and burglars.

You say it's a separate argument: Do you think that "responsible gun owner" bears no responsibility when a child gets his hands on dad's carelessly stored gun and blows away himself or a friend or shoots up a classroom? Is a box in the closet or the dresser drawer really a safe place to store a gun when children are in the house?

You're a super-mod and you post non-responsive nonsense like this? C'mon, set the bar a little higher than this will you? You took the time to hit "Reply" and, in the subsequent flurry of attack-mode typing, you couldn't simply just answer the heart of the question posed?

Do responsible gun owners think responsible gun ownership enables a lowly burglar to pull open an unlocked, unsecured kitchen drawer or bedside table drawer and make off with their guns? Yes or no?

LOL doesnt make much sense to bury your gun under your floor in order to keep it from a lowly burgular....makes much more sense to have in your night stand and blow the muther fucher away for breaking into your house. That how I define a responible gun owner :nice:

LOL doesnt make much sense to bury your gun under your floor in order to keep it from a lowly burgular....makes much more sense to have in your night stand and blow the muther fucher away for breaking into your house. That how I define a responible gun owner :nice:

If you want to holster the gun or sleep with it under your pillow when you're in the house, that's one thing. It's stupid sounding but I guess when you live in crime-riddled 3rd world cities, you must have a need protect yourselves... But when you leave the house to go to work or to the store or whatever, what then? If you can't carry the thing with you, what then? Where does one leave the unattended weapon then? In a box in the closet? In a dresser drawer under some socks? Or in a proper, secure gun safe out of reach of children and burglars alike?

If you want to holster the gun or sleep with it under your pillow when you're in the house, that's one thing. It's stupid sounding but I guess when you live in crime-riddled 3rd world cities, you must have a need protect yourselves... But when you leave the house to go to work or to the store or whatever, what then? If you can't carry the thing with you, what then? Where does one leave the unattended weapon then? In a box in the closet? In a dresser drawer under some socks? Or in a proper, secure gun safe out of reach of children and burglars alike?

No Children in my house and the dog doesnt have a trigger finger.

As I said, not gonna rehash this. Think what you want. :shrug:

No Children in my house and the dog doesnt have a trigger finger.

And burglars?

If you are so positive the house is hardened against unauthorized entry such that a burglar can't possibly get in, to the extent that you don't need a gun safe to secure your deadly weapon from falling into unauthorized hands in your absence, why do you need a gun? If the place is hard enough that no one can possibly break in and steal your unsecured weapon then you must be so safe in this vault that you don't need a gun in the first place. If bad guys can't get in, why would one need a gun?

But you don't think this, do you? You want the gun close at hand so that you can "blow the muther fucher away for breaking into your house", right? So again, if bad actors can break into your house when you are there, isn't the responsible thing to do to take all precautions to properly secure your weapons against being taken when you aren't there?

Okay, we never said anything about bad actors, but, I swear to God, if Keanu Reeves breaks into my house, that f*cker is going down! I don't care if I have to hit him in the head with a skillet!

If they give supposedly "responsible" gun owners incentive to properly and securely store their weapons instead of leaving them in drawers and in closets then I think laws can keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Better the guy leaves your house with a PS3 and a few games instead of a PS3, a few games and a Glock, right?



Don't hold your breath waiting for gun owners to do anything they talk big about, like "rising up" against perceived tyranny. :rolleyes:



Given this, do you store your guns in a dresser drawer under some socks, knowing that there's a high likelihood that "unauthorized persons" are entering your premises?



If you step out of your idling car for just a moment to dash into a convenience store to get a pack of smokes and your car is stolen, do you really expect the insurance company to pony up for your laziness and negligence?

Isn't the right all about personal responsibility? Don't gun owners have certain responsibilities to keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals?

My guns are legal, and under lock and key, but the reality is that locks are for honest people.

I've seen an ATM machine ripped out of a floor by a truck and a chain. That machine had over 30 grand in it, and was never recovered. If people want to steal things, they will. Unless your home and guns are wired and monitored, they are at risk. Even then, alarms can be disabled very easily, especially by thieves with basic security system knowledge, and phone lines can be easily cut, rendering most alarm systems useless. The siren can be taken out in seconds once the home is entered. Cutting the primary phone line disables the ability of the monitoring company to contact the homeowner for at least few minutes, providing they have a secondary contact number. So, guns, along with all other possessions are still at risk. Most people don't spend the money on a high tech security system with cellular back up. The cops aren't serious about prosecuting burglaries, so they are of little help. They file the report and move on.

I have owned guns all of my life, and not one of has ever been stolen despite being robbed. I hide them as well as lock them, up. Even a safe isn't safe, because people will steal the entire thing. If it's floor mounted, it can be unmounted if someone wants it bad enough. Wall mounts are even easier to detach.

The truth is, a certain segment of the population steals for a living, and it can be a very good living. They aren't going to stop because a group of people gather and pass a new law. Guns will be stolen. So will anything else of value, and locking them up doesn't necessarily stop that from happening. A small crow bar is all it takes to get into any unmonitored house, and while people are away for a few hours, they can be wiped out. It happens every day.

I have sold many security systems, and SO many people have called me after the fact. They were always guaranteed sales. They realize how vulnerable they are and try to protect themselves, but it's too late. They have already been robbed.

Rose colored glasses won't stop crime, and neither will the false belief that criminals will obey the latest gun control legislation, but guns thwart crime every day. The politicians who oppose guns are also protected by them, and their armed security details won't hesitate to use lethal force if they're threatened.

My guns are legal, and under lock and key, but the reality is that locks are for honest people.

I've seen an ATM machine ripped out of a floor by a truck and a chain. That machine had over 30 grand in it, and was never recovered.

I'm sure you'll agree however that that ATM is a safer repository for thirty thousand dollars in cash than if the money were stored in a cardboard box just inside the door. I mean you have to see this, right?

If people want to steal things, they will.

It's not that simple. A typical burglar will be deterred by the time and effort required to break open and/or make off with an entire gun safe; the guns have a far higher likelihood of remaining on the premises than if that same burglar finds the gun in a drawer or box in the closet while rummaging around looking for jewelry, drugs, money or guns...

Unless your home and guns are wired and monitored, they are at risk.

Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.

So, guns, along with all other possessions are still at risk.

Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.

Even a safe isn't safe, because people will steal the entire thing. If it's floor mounted, it can be unmounted if someone wants it bad enough. Wall mounts are even easier to detach.

Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.

And I'll wager that the vast majority of break and enters and property theft last a minute or less, with the perp gaining access and rummaging around obvious places where "responsible" gun owners store their weapons -- drawers, closets and the like -- and where money, drugs and jewelry are found before bolting with whatever they can carry easily. Very few will take the time and effort to remove a gun safe bolted down to the floor, let alone settling in with a wrench or cutting torch to remove it from the dwelling.

The truth is, a certain segment of the population steals for a living, and it can be a very good living.

This is true, which makes it all the more a mystery why so many "responsible" gun owners leave their unattended weapons in places where they can be easily stolen by petty thieves looking for something they can pawn.

Do you store all your money under your mattress? No? Why?

I'm sure you'll agree however that that ATM is a safer repository for thirty thousand dollars in cash than if the money were stored in a cardboard box just inside the door. I mean you have to see this, right?



It's not that simple. A typical burglar will be deterred by the time and effort required to break open and/or make off with an entire gun safe; the guns have a far higher likelihood of remaining on the premises than if that same burglar finds the gun in a drawer or box in the closet while rummaging around looking for jewelry, drugs, money or guns...



Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.



Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.



Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.

And I'll wager that the vast majority of break and enters and property theft last a minute or less, with the perp gaining access and rummaging around obvious places where "responsible" gun owners store their weapons -- drawers, closets and the like -- and where money, drugs and jewelry are found before bolting with whatever they can carry easily. Very few will take the time and effort to remove a gun safe bolted down to the floor, let alone settling in with a wrench or cutting torch to remove it from the dwelling.



This is true, which makes it all the more a mystery why so many "responsible" gun owners leave their unattended weapons in places where they can be easily stolen by petty thieves looking for something they can pawn.

Do you store all your money under your mattress? No? Why?

Why do you keep accusing responsible gun owners of improperly storing their weapons? Most gun owners do lock their weapons up. I always have, and so does almost everyone I know, but that still doesn't mean that they can't be stolen.

Oh, and robberies can least for hours. I know because I've been robbed, and there is no way they ransacked my home in ten minutes. They went from the basement to the attic, and stole almost everything of value. They had a truck on the lawn that they loaded up.

Oddly, my guns were overlooked. Why?? because they were hidden. If my gun safe had been in a conspicuous place, they would have stolen the whole thing and broken into it later. A cutting torch and Sawsall can do wonders, and as I said before, locks are for honest people. They are also easily picked. How do you suppose locksmiths can get into anything?? Thieves learn the same skills in many cases.I know tow truck drivers who can get in to almost any lock with a very basic set of picks, and it only takes a minute or so. If that doesn't work, a cordless drill with a diamond or carbide bit will often do the trick.

Two plastic wedges will get you into almost any car, and no one pays attention to car alarms. No one calls the cops when they hear it, because almost every time they go off, it's a false alarm.

Yeah, we all know that a safe is better than a box; that's basic common sense, but who keeps their guns in a cardboard box?? People who are that stupid are asking to have their guns stolen. People who think basic locks will keep their valuables safe are only fooling themselves. Thieves depend on this false sense of security.

Why do you keep accusing responsible gun owners of improperly storing their weapons?

It's the ones that claim to be responsible gun owners that don't lock their weapons up that I'm focusing on. In 1994, the DoJ wrote:

"BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost one-third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts or burglaries from stores or other businesses." - link (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr)

Thefts of guns from households is a major part of what's putting guns in the hands of criminals.

Most gun owners do lock their weapons up. I always have, and so does almost everyone I know, but that still doesn't mean that they can't be stolen.

Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.

Oh, and robberies can least for hours. I know because I've been robbed, and there is no way they ransacked my home in ten minutes. They went from the basement to the attic, and stole almost everything of value. They had a truck on the lawn that they loaded up.

Oddly, my guns were overlooked. Why?? because they were hidden. If my gun safe had been in a conspicuous place, they would have stolen the whole thing and broken into it later.

I still maintain:

Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.

If you've managed to find a hidey-hole somewhere in your house that is truly "unfindable", good for you. I'll take that over a dresser drawer anyday though I doubt it's as good as a proper gun safe. The number of guns ending up in criminals' hands suggests many so-called "responsible gun owners" are not securing their weapons.

We're told how hard it is to obtain a gun legally (as if...but anyway...) We know that Colt and Smith & Wesson are not subjected to regular break-ins where their inventory is ransacked. So where do the guns in the hands of criminals come from?

Yeah, we all know that a safe is better than a box; that's basic common sense...

The problem is it's not common sense to people like jwreck.

but who keeps their guns in a cardboard box?? People who are that stupid are asking to have their guns stolen.

Thank you.

I'll go one step further: People you are "that stupid" and risk their deadly weapons falling into criminals' hands should be charged with criminal negligence if that gun goes on to be used in a crime.

Now, please answer the question:

Do you store all your money under your mattress? If not, why?

Is there a reason why people choose to keep their life savings in an otherwise secure facility like a bank instead of in a hidey-hole in their house?

Your hiding place for your gun is really secure, right? Would you be willing to hide your quarter-million dollars' worth of life savings -- in cash -- in that same place?

I get what you're saying, but I think that you're taking the comparison a little too far.

Obviously, I'll leave my life savings in a bank instead of under my mattress, but a criminal isn't going to be all that scared of my safety deposit box key. So, it's really apples to oranges, don't you think?

I've never made a big secret about my feelings; buying/owning a handgun should be the most difficult thing on the face of the planet, in my opinion. Unfortunately, my opinion isn't the only one that matters.

Obviously, I'll leave my life savings in a bank instead of under my mattress, but a criminal isn't going to be all that scared of my safety deposit box key. So, it's really apples to oranges, don't you think?

No. It's about relative levels of security, not how scared a criminal will be about finding a gun in a drawer.

You don't store all your money in a box in your closet because you know it's not truly safe there. You don't leave your purse or wallet on the passenger seat of your car while you dash into the mall because you know that a smash-n-grab can relieve you of it in seconds. Indeed, you don't leave your child in a stroller on the sidewalk while you run into the bank because of the risk of abduction. There are countless instances of situations where we do not simply rely on a pane of glass or a screen door or a real good hidin' place to secure things that are very valuable or very dangerous.

A gun, as a "dangerous instrumentality"(1 (http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/1998/19980819/79546.htm)), requires more prudent and appropriate storage. It's not just about the owner losing the dollar value of the gun if it's stolen, any more than a contractor only losing the dollar value of sticks of dynamite stolen from an unsecured construction shed: When security is lax enough that "dangerous instrumentalities" like explosives and firearms are unreasonably easy to fall into unauthorized hands, that constitutes the highest level of irresponsibility on the part of the owner and he should be liable for anything that subsequently happens as a result.

It's the ones that claim to be responsible gun owners that don't lock their weapons up that I'm focusing on. In 1994, the DoJ wrote:

"BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost one-third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts or burglaries from stores or other businesses." - link (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr)

Thefts of guns from households is a major part of what's putting guns in the hands of criminals.



Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.

Oh, and robberies can least for hours. I know because I've been robbed, and there is no way they ransacked my home in ten minutes. They went from the basement to the attic, and stole almost everything of value. They had a truck on the lawn that they loaded up.



I still maintain:

Guns in a safe are not as at risk as guns in a cardboard box or dresser drawer.

If you've managed to find a hidey-hole somewhere in your house that is truly "unfindable", good for you. I'll take that over a dresser drawer anyday though I doubt it's as good as a proper gun safe. The number of guns ending up in criminals' hands suggests many so-called "responsible gun owners" are not securing their weapons.

We're told how hard it is to obtain a gun legally (as if...but anyway...) We know that Colt and Smith & Wesson are not subjected to regular break-ins where their inventory is ransacked. So where do the guns in the hands of criminals come from?



The problem is it's not common sense to people like jwreck.



Thank you.

I'll go one step further: People you are "that stupid" and risk their deadly weapons falling into criminals' hands should be charged with criminal negligence if that gun goes on to be used in a crime.

Now, please answer the question:

Do you store all your money under your mattress? If not, why?

Is there a reason why people choose to keep their life savings in an otherwise secure facility like a bank instead of in a hidey-hole in their house?

Your hiding place for your gun is really secure, right? Would you be willing to hide your quarter-million dollars' worth of life savings -- in cash -- in that same place?

If your logic is applied to a stolen car that is misused to kill someone, then the victim of theft should be penalized. I don't buy it. The people who commit the actual act should be prosecuted and punished.

If someone steals a baseball bat or a butcher knife, they could use both to harm others. Again, should we all fear prosecution for being robbed of "dangerous" item. Objects that can harm are only as harmful as the person using it. a knife in a drawer, a gun on a table, or a car in a driveway are harmless. It's only when dangerous people use these things with bad intent that the trouble begins.

I have owned guns since I was 11. Not a single crime or injury has ever resulted from my ownership of any firearms, and I have owned well over a hundred. I own handguns, shotguns, small caliber rifles and have even owned what have been renamed "assault weapons". These are old technologies that the anti gun movement has recreated as something new and different to heighten the fear factor.

The root of the problem is, we need to fear, and punish the humans behind the weapons, behind the wheel, or the ones swinging the bat, the knife or bashing the skull with a rock picked up from the ground. Guns are only as harmful as the person operating them. The same can be said for rocks or big sticks. I know many, many gun owners, and none of us have had any accidents or crimes as a result of us legally purchasing and owning guns. Criminals on the other hand don't obey the laws, so they fact that they may use weapons to commit crimes is no surprise. It just amazes me that so many Americans, who live in a country with a second amendment, cannot make the distinction between legal gun ownership and criminal abuse of that right. People also abuse their freedom to drive, and when they do, and get caught, we take their licenses away, but we don't take them away from everyone else. That would be idiotic.

The crooks who steal guns to commit crimes are already criminals before they use the stolen weapon. It's the criminal element that make responsible gun owners look bad in the eyes of some people. Many people even actually believe that a scary looking gun ("assault" weapon, as if there is such a thing as a non assault weapon) is somehow more dangerous than more traditional looking weapons as a result of lobbying and targeted marketing against such weapons.

This is the same old debate with a different twist. People are trying to convince others that all guns should be banned because some of them will be stolen and used in crimes. Again, if we applied that logic to every potentially dangerous object, we couldn't own cars, sports equipment, pocket knives, or even have matches, because someone may steal them to commit arson. It's an argument based on fear; not logic.

If your logic is applied to a stolen car that is misused to kill someone, then the victim of theft should be penalized.

It depends. Look up "negligent entrustment" law, typically applied to the case of the automobile being used by a 3rd party...

The people who commit the actual act should be prosecuted and punished.

Of course. But I also believe that people and businesses that decide to equip themselves with "dangerous instrumentalities" like guns or explosives also bear an additional responsibility to properly ensure that these things do not end up in unauthorized hands.

Or would you be okay with a contractor leaving high-explosives in a fenced-yard only, not locked securely in a proper storage building? If a contractor did so, if he was negligent and careless with his explosives and some was stolen, you'd see no reason for legal action against the contractor when the perp blows up a shopping mall?

If someone steals a baseball bat or a butcher knife, they could use both to harm others. Again, should we all fear prosecution for being robbed of "dangerous" item.

In the case of First National v Regent, the justices wrote:

""There are many things used by children that may be said to be unsafe when used for the purpose for which they are intended. A baseball, a baseball bat, a pen knife, a Boy Scout hatchet, a bicycle, all have the capacity to injure the user or others in the course of their normal use. They are not, however, to be categorized as 'dangerous instrumentalities....' "" (1 (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/803/803.F2d.1431.85-2834.html))

I've already shown above that a gun is characterized as a dangerous instrumentality. Baseball bats do not equal guns. If they did, why don't you protect your house with a bat? Or a kitchen knife? You really think these devices are equally dangerous? Why not save your government billions and send your troops into battle with basters and butter knives instead of projectile weapons? C'mon, use a little common sense.

I believe that every instance of violence of one person against another be examined for such negligence. If another aircraft were to be hijacked and crashed into the Sears Tower and it was found that the airline hadn't properly installed a locking door to the cockpit, yes, I believe that airline was negligent and this negligence led directly to the aircraft coming under control of unauthorized individuals with horrific results. You're damn right the "victim" should be punished.

Objects that can harm are only as harmful as the person using it. a knife in a drawer, a gun on a table, or a car in a driveway are harmless. It's only when dangerous people use these things with bad intent that the trouble begins.

I've already shown that from a legal perspective guns are considered dangerous instrumentalities, unlike bats and balls and knives. Guns rank up there with explosives and high-voltage electrical wiring and the like in their inherent danger. Owners have a responsibility to ensure these things, explosives or guns, do not end up in the hands of unauthorized individuals.

Think of it as personal responsibility. The right is always on about personal responsibility, right? There are many things in life we do, every day, that require additional steps be taken to ensure the safety of others. When I use my lawn mower, I keep a keen eye out of kids to prevent hurting them, It's my responsibility to avoid harming them as much as we can say it's theirs to stay out of the way.

I've asked before, if the gun is not a dangerous thing, if it's people that kill people, not guns, why do we stop at guns for home and personal protection? I mean, a lawn full of land mines would be much more effective at stopping someone before they get to your door than a gun. An RPG could take care of someone chasing after you after a road-rage incident, right? If the inanimate object is not the problem in any way, shape or form, why do we have laws restricting ownership and accessibility to anything? Why do we as a society deem that certain things are too dangerous for mass consumption? Why do we demand that owners of certain things enact additional measures to keep their property -- explosives, dogs, etc -- secure?

I know what you are trying to say, just as I know what jwreck is trying to say when he argues that if his gun is in his house, it's assumed secure and that someone must commit a criminal act to get to it. It's a philosophically flowery, insubstantive, empty argument because it ignores human nature. The whole point is that people do commit acts where they try to get unauthorized access to things. You don't leave your wallet on the seat of your car, do you? You don't have all your money stuff into your mattress, do you? Why not? The fact that you've described an instance where your house has been broken into serves my argument far better than yours or his: You have first hand experience that jwreck's argument is vapid and that if you hadn't gone that extra step of "hiding" your guns, they would most likely have been taken along with whatever else was stolen.

Why did you take that step? If guns aren't dangerous, why did you feel the need to hide them that way? Why did you give your guns that special consideration and not, say, your game console or stereo?

Leave gun unlocked, hide ammo from kid. No problems.

We don't need silly laws, just more common sense.

Further proof that black men, especially with tarded last names, make horrible mayors. They'd probably make great mayors in Canada and Europe however.

Common sense dictates that tyrants like nutter should be summarily executed or deported to Canada. Free plane ride to canada too cept the plane won't be landing.

Gas is too expensive to send him to Europe so hoser land is the only logical choice.

That law is ****in bullshit. Somebody needs to go shoot that nutter before he breeds.

It depends. Look up "negligent entrustment" law, typically applied to the case of the automobile being used by a 3rd party...



Of course. But I also believe that people and businesses that decide to equip themselves with "dangerous instrumentalities" like guns or explosives also bear an additional responsibility to properly ensure that these things do not end up in unauthorized hands.

Or would you be okay with a contractor leaving high-explosives in a fenced-yard only, not locked securely in a proper storage building? If a contractor did so, if he was negligent and careless with his explosives and some was stolen, you'd see no reason for legal action against the contractor when the perp blows up a shopping mall?



In the case of First National v Regent, the justices wrote:

""There are many things used by children that may be said to be unsafe when used for the purpose for which they are intended. A baseball, a baseball bat, a pen knife, a Boy Scout hatchet, a bicycle, all have the capacity to injure the user or others in the course of their normal use. They are not, however, to be categorized as 'dangerous instrumentalities....' "" (1 (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/803/803.F2d.1431.85-2834.html))

I've already shown above that a gun is characterized as a dangerous instrumentality. Baseball bats do not equal guns. If they did, why don't you protect your house with a bat? Or a kitchen knife? You really think these devices are equally dangerous? Why not save your government billions and send your troops into battle with basters and butter knives instead of projectile weapons? C'mon, use a little common sense.

I believe that every instance of violence of one person against another be examined for such negligence. If another aircraft were to be hijacked and crashed into the Sears Tower and it was found that the airline hadn't properly installed a locking door to the cockpit, yes, I believe that airline was negligent and this negligence led directly to the aircraft coming under control of unauthorized individuals with horrific results. You're damn right the "victim" should be punished.



I've already shown that from a legal perspective guns are considered dangerous instrumentalities, unlike bats and balls and knives. Guns rank up there with explosives and high-voltage electrical wiring and the like in their inherent danger. Owners have a responsibility to ensure these things, explosives or guns, do not end up in the hands of unauthorized individuals.

Think of it as personal responsibility. The right is always on about personal responsibility, right? There are many things in life we do, every day, that require additional steps be taken to ensure the safety of others. When I use my lawn mower, I keep a keen eye out of kids to prevent hurting them, It's my responsibility to avoid harming them as much as we can say it's theirs to stay out of the way.

I've asked before, if the gun is not a dangerous thing, if it's people that kill people, not guns, why do we stop at guns for home and personal protection? I mean, a lawn full of land mines would be much more effective at stopping someone before they get to your door than a gun. An RPG could take care of someone chasing after you after a road-rage incident, right? If the inanimate object is not the problem in any way, shape or form, why do we have laws restricting ownership and accessibility to anything? Why do we as a society deem that certain things are too dangerous for mass consumption? Why do we demand that owners of certain things enact additional measures to keep their property -- explosives, dogs, etc -- secure?

I know what you are trying to say, just as I know what jwreck is trying to say when he argues that if his gun is in his house, it's assumed secure and that someone must commit a criminal act to get to it. It's a philosophically flowery, insubstantive, empty argument because it ignores human nature. The whole point is that people do commit acts where they try to get unauthorized access to things. You don't leave your wallet on the seat of your car, do you? You don't have all your money stuff into your mattress, do you? Why not? The fact that you've described an instance where your house has been broken into serves my argument far better than yours or his: You have first hand experience that jwreck's argument is vapid and that if you hadn't gone that extra step of "hiding" your guns, they would most likely have been taken along with whatever else was stolen.

Why did you take that step? If guns aren't dangerous, why did you feel the need to hide them that way? Why did you give your guns that special consideration and not, say, your game console or stereo?

I secure my weapons because I don't want anyone harmed by them. Again., that';s common sense, and most gun owners do the same. Anecdotal evidence of irresponsible gun owners not doing so doesn't change the fact that most of us do.

When I was about 16, I personally whipped an attacker off with a fan belt, and sliced him up pretty good, and got him on the run, while I chased him and sliced him a few more times to teach him a lesson. Yeah, I was pissed, and it was my full intention to inflict even more injury on this individual. I would do it again and have no more remorse than if I had swatted a fly. Criminals need to deterred, attacked, and punished when necessary. The old saying goes "evil men prevail when good men do nothing". It's true. If they suffer no consequence, they will continue to abuse their rights and the rights of the law abiding.

No one is claiming guns shouldn't be secured; that's a given, but punishing the victims of gun theft won't drop gun crimes one bit. If the goal of this law is to lower gun crime, it's fatally flawed, and it will never work because it ignores the actual perpetrators of gun violence, and puts their misdeeds on those who would never dare to use a gun to commit crime. It's a feel good law that is basically useless, unless the city wants to fine the victims to raise revenue, which is more likely what it's really about, like so many other laws are.

It's the criminals who need to be punished with hard time; not the victims of criminals. Locking up theft victims takes up jail space, court time, and costs money that would be better spent prosecuting real criminals, not the victims of theft.

I secure my weapons because I don't want anyone harmed by them.

But wait a minute: You said "Objects that can harm are only as harmful as the person using it."

The whole point I'm making -- and which you seem to be supporting, if inadvertently -- is keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of unauthorized persons by properly securing "dangerous instrumentalities" like guns.

I don't suppose you also hide your kitchen knives, game console and your child's baseball bat so lest anyone be harmed by them, do you? You have singled out your guns, separated them in classification from kitchen knives and baseball bats for special treatment, not simply relying on a pane of glass or the mesh of a screen door but actually hiding them because you reasonably know that these things falling into the wrong hands is a menace and a danger to others.

Kudos to you for being a responsible gun owner in this regard. You take the responsibility seriously and make an effort to keep your guns out of the hands of criminals. You have said that people that fail to properly secure their guns are "stupid" and are "asking to have their guns stolen."

I don't really know why you're arguing with me since you're clearly in agreement. I think the only thing separating us is that I go the step further and say that irresponsible gun owners are not just "stupid", they are negligent, possibly criminally so.

No one is claiming guns shouldn't be secured; that's a given, but punishing the victims of gun theft won't drop gun crimes one bit.

Earlier, I posted a link that quoted "BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually involved firearm thefts": Tell me, had these weapons been properly secured such that theft was not simply an open-drawer away, how would the number of subsequent gun crimes been affected? Would it have dropped? How many children would not have gotten access to dads gun and killed themselves or a playmate had these guns not been within easy reach of children's hands?

A law such as this will, if nothing else, remind gun owners of their responsibilities and provide them with an incentive to properly and securely store their guns, just as speeding fines and other traffic laws give us incentive to drive responsibly and within the limit.

If the goal of this law is to lower gun crime, it's fatally flawed, and it will never work because it ignores the actual perpetrators of gun violence...

But they are two separate issues and both require serious consideration. The issue of proper and secure gun storage talks to the gun owners themselves about negligence regarding dangerous instrumentalities like guns.

The issue of violent criminals can be considered a whole other, separate legal issue. The unfortunate overlap is that the theft of unsecured weapons from negligent gun owners is part of what enables the criminal to do his deeds.

It's the criminals who need to be punished with hard time; not the victims of criminals.

I agree, but I also believe that negligence on the part of gun owners when it comes to dangerous instrumentalities should not simply be ignored under the law.

You appear to be a responsible gun owner. You've said that you hide your guns because you "want anyone harmed by them." You've also said that people that do not properly secure their guns are "stupid." Are they "responsible" gun owners? Are they negligent? Are they part of the problem? Do they help or hinder criminals that would not otherwise have access to a gun?

But wait a minute: You said "Objects that can harm are only as harmful as the person using it."

The whole point I'm making -- and which you seem to be supporting, if inadvertently -- is keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of unauthorized persons by properly securing "dangerous instrumentalities" like guns.

I don't suppose you also hide your kitchen knives, game console and your child's baseball bat so lest anyone be harmed by them, do you? You have singled out your guns, separated them in classification from kitchen knives and baseball bats for special treatment, not simply relying on a pane of glass or the mesh of a screen door but actually hiding them because you reasonably know that these things falling into the wrong hands is a menace and a danger to others.

Kudos to you for being a responsible gun owner in this regard. You take the responsibility seriously and make an effort to keep your guns out of the hands of criminals. You have said that people that fail to properly secure their guns are "stupid" and are "asking to have their guns stolen."

I don't really know why you're arguing with me since you're clearly in agreement. I think the only thing separating us is that I go the step further and say that irresponsible gun owners are not just "stupid", they are negligent, possibly criminally so.



Earlier, I posted a link that quoted "BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually involved firearm thefts": Tell me, had these weapons been properly secured such that theft was not simply an open-drawer away, how would the number of subsequent gun crimes been affected? Would it have dropped? How many children would not have gotten access to dads gun and killed themselves or a playmate had these guns not been within easy reach of children's hands?

A law such as this will, if nothing else, remind gun owners of their responsibilities and provide them with an incentive to properly and securely store their guns, just as speeding fines and other traffic laws give us incentive to drive responsibly and within the limit.



But they are two separate issues and both require serious consideration. The issue of proper and secure gun storage talks to the gun owners themselves about negligence regarding dangerous instrumentalities like guns.

The issue of violent criminals can be considered a whole other, separate legal issue. The unfortunate overlap is that the theft of unsecured weapons from negligent gun owners is part of what enables the criminal to do his deeds.



I agree, but I also believe that negligence on the part of gun owners when it comes to dangerous instrumentalities should not simply be ignored under the law.

You appear to be a responsible gun owner. You've said that you hide your guns because you "want anyone harmed by them." You've also said that people that do not properly secure their guns are "stupid." Are they "responsible" gun owners? Are they negligent? Are they part of the problem? Do they help or hinder criminals that would not otherwise have access to a gun?

Guns fall under a different set of laws than knives and bats; especially in my state, where we have had Brady style rules since long before Brady was ever shot.

If my stolen weapon is used in a crime, the cops may come after me, and I just may go to jail if I can't prove they were stolen. This is why I disagree with the law in question, because it deters people from reporting the stolen weapons, putting themselves, and others at risk. Stolen guns should be reported at once, and to make that illegal is foolish. It defeats the purpose of even registering the weapon to begin with. Guns are registered for the express purpose of being traceable.

Securing my weapons is far more for my own protection than the protection of others, although I don't want any innocent people injured as a result of my gun ownership. I have little or no sympathy for criminals, and if they get caught breaking the law and go to jail, then they deserve it. My neck is on the line as far as my personal weapons are concerned, because I'm the one who gets the background checks, has to wait for the green light, and is on record with the State Police as owning the particular handguns that I have purchased.

I won't risk my future at the hands of some punk thief. It's called covering your ass.

You appear to be a responsible gun owner. You've said that you hide your guns because you "want anyone harmed by them." You've also said that people that do not properly secure their guns are "stupid." Are they "responsible" gun owners? Are they negligent? Are they part of the problem? Do they help or hinder criminals that would not otherwise have access to a gun?

Please answer.

You appear to be a responsible gun owner. You've said that you hide your guns because you "want anyone harmed by them." You've also said that people that do not properly secure their guns are "stupid." Are they "responsible" gun owners? Are they negligent? Are they part of the problem? Do they help or hinder criminals that would not otherwise have access to a gun?

Please answer.

How should I know who's helping whom?? No one plans on being robbed, so if people have their weapons stolen, it's on the one who steals the weapon ultimately. A gun in a drawer shouldn't be stolen by a criminal anymore than a gun in a safe should.

We don't put guns in jail, we put people who use them in the commission of crime in jail. Why is that?? Why is the gun a bad thing until the case goes to trial, and it becomes nothing more than evidence, and not a subject of debate?? It's always the person who used it that gets accused, so to me, that says it all about ultimate responsibility.

If people choose to keep their guns in an unsafe place, then they have to live with the consequences of their actions, whatever they may be, and in the event that something unforeseen and/or tragic occurs. Most gun owners don't leave guns laying around to begin with, and it's the minority who are leaving them to be more easily stolen, yet the guilt still lies on the thief, as well as the ultimate responsibility for any harm that may come from the theft.

It's still ridiculous to penalize those who are robbed, and will only deter them from reporting stolen weapons. The lower report rate will result in some stupid statistic that will claim gun theft is down, when it's only reported gun theft that will drop. This could even be an incentive for thieves to steal even more weapons, because they know it may never be reported under the new law.

The really idiotic laws almost always overlook, or completely ignore human nature. For every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction, and in the long run, this law will prove that this is the case. The human nature that was never factored in will eventually reveal itself, then everyone will see what a stupid policy this was, and hopefully, it will eventually be abolished.

The SCOTUS ruled correctly on the D.C. gun ban and overturned it. It never worked anyway, and D.C. became one of the most dangerous cities on earth. Hopefully, the same will happen with this latest asinine law, and enough people will see it for what it is, and abolish it.