Mine are always locked in one of two gun safes. The only one not in the safe is the one I carry and place in my night stand at night. I feel safe with this practice. No one is going to steel a gun from my home without first having to get past my guard dog and myself or my wife when I am not home.
A message for gun owners.
- Thread starter chris in va
- Start date
ScottRiqui
New member
Exactly. When I first started in the Navy's nuclear power program, I was shocked that we weren't subject to any of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rules and regulations. As I learned more, I realized that we were holding ourselves to much higher standards than the NRC's, and that, combined with our excellent safety record, meant that the NRC left us alone.
I personally don't have a need to leave guns hidden or just laying around my home. Most are locked in the safe including my EDC at night. In the event of a burgulary at night, I have my HD gun in my handgun safe mounted to my bedframe.
When at home I ALWAYS pocket carry a small .380. I know it's not the best caliber, but it is always handy and in my possession. My 12ga is chambered in the safe in case I need it and have time to get it.
When at home I ALWAYS pocket carry a small .380. I know it's not the best caliber, but it is always handy and in my possession. My 12ga is chambered in the safe in case I need it and have time to get it.
ScottRiqui
New member
I'm conflicted on this point. While it's true that having the guns inside your house is technically "securing" them, the idea of "security" for a typical house (or car) is more of a moral restraint than a physical one.
To me, the idea of leaving unattended guns out in the open in an empty, "locked" house still smacks of irresponsibility.
Yes, you can leave banded stacks of $100 bills out in the open in your house, and if you're burgled, you *are* the victim. But I'm still going to call you a dumbass if it happens.
On the other hand, that reminds me of the time I let my son drive my pickup truck to school. First time ever. He comes home with damage to the front left fender and turn signal assembly. It cost about $1200.00 and yes, the ins co paid for it. But it turns out he admitted that he saw the other vehicle coming over into his lane, but took no defensive measures like changing lanes or slowing down to let them in. He claimed he was "in the right" to stay right where he was. It was the other driver's fault, not his.
This is a story about decision-making.
He was "in the right".
Truck damaged.
Lost driving privileges from Dad.
Duh.
As with all battles, there is a need to defeat the true enemy, the Bloombergs, the Fienstiens, the Schummers, and all the other anti-gun zealots that are afoot in the elitist halls of power. But we also need to "win the hearts and minds" of the non-combatents. Those people who really don't have an opinion one way or the other, but want to be responsible and involved. So they watch the news, they listen to the speaches, and they try to make an informed decision based on what they believe. Granted, we are behind the eight ball because the national and most of the local news media is so slanted to the left, but just maybe we can make some inroads at our local level, and as they say, "all politics are local". We don't do that by being irresponsible and "in your face" but niether do we do it by saying to our leaders "stop doing that or I'm going to tell my Mommy". They must know that if they get bold and push this agenda to its extreme they will order a crap sandwich for lunch which they do not want to eat.
So remember that the gun store shelves are empty because thousands of people are buying guns, many for the first time. Help them learn the joys of the shooting sports and responsible gun ownership. Lead by example, win hearts and minds that way, not by yelling at them about your Second Ammendment rights, they dont get it. And while I hate the idea that as the victim of a theft, the fickle finger gets pointed at me as the one who "gave the bad guy a gun", I would feel terrible if my gun was used to hurt someone because I had not secured it.
I have become more lax about firearms in my home since my children have all grown up and moved away, and I am going to reevaluate my plan for having them accesable if needed yet secured from unauthorized hands. And as an NRA Instructor, I'm going to offer free basic classes in my community to people who are unfamiliar with and even affraid of guns, so that thoses hearts and minds are not so easily swayed by lies and spin from our supposed "Representatives".
So remember that the gun store shelves are empty because thousands of people are buying guns, many for the first time. Help them learn the joys of the shooting sports and responsible gun ownership. Lead by example, win hearts and minds that way, not by yelling at them about your Second Ammendment rights, they dont get it. And while I hate the idea that as the victim of a theft, the fickle finger gets pointed at me as the one who "gave the bad guy a gun", I would feel terrible if my gun was used to hurt someone because I had not secured it.
I have become more lax about firearms in my home since my children have all grown up and moved away, and I am going to reevaluate my plan for having them accesable if needed yet secured from unauthorized hands. And as an NRA Instructor, I'm going to offer free basic classes in my community to people who are unfamiliar with and even affraid of guns, so that thoses hearts and minds are not so easily swayed by lies and spin from our supposed "Representatives".
To our foreign visitors...
... this may come as a shock to you, but when I was a child it was not at all unusual for people to keep guns in display racks in their living rooms. This was considered normal, but then so was gun ownership.
If somebody had implied, back in the 1970s, that a gun owner was morally or legally responsible for the actions of a thief, they would have been laughed at, and rightfully so.
So what are the differences between then and now, in the US?
First, gun ownership has been increasingly demonized, primarily by the types of people who believe the state should assume responsibility for the individual.
Second, in the 1980s, our mental health care infrastructure was drastically cut back, and this was followed by the introduction of crack cocaine. In the 1990s, meth started gaining in popularity.
So, the substantive changes have been in mental health care and a larger black market for drugs, with its accompanying (respective) erratic behaviors and violence.
Have the behaviors of lawful gun owners become somehow more outrageous? No. Have the violent crime rates for lawful gun owners gone up? Again, no.
Have more and more members of society tried to blame the actions of criminals on the rest of society? Yes. Have people tried to shift the paradigm from individual responsibility to societal responsibility? Yes, although only in the worst ways imaginable - IE by chipping away at the individual's ability to deal with issues (Spank your child? That's ABUSE!!! Carry a gun? That's why we have police!!!) while failing to hold agencies that have theoretically assumed those responsibilities accountable when they fail to provide acceptable levels of service.
So, now we have antis blaming gun owners for the actions of people who should either be in treatment programs or in jail, while society fails to hold the actual criminals fully accountable for their actions.
As I said earlier, I have a very good safe, and I use it. I have lockboxes for when I travel (for my suitcase, plus a vault in my vehicle). I recommend that others do the same.
But if a gun owner does not, and a burglar takes his gun, I don't blame the gun owner. I blame the burglar, and I blame the society that tries to shift the blame from where it should fall.
... this may come as a shock to you, but when I was a child it was not at all unusual for people to keep guns in display racks in their living rooms. This was considered normal, but then so was gun ownership.
If somebody had implied, back in the 1970s, that a gun owner was morally or legally responsible for the actions of a thief, they would have been laughed at, and rightfully so.
So what are the differences between then and now, in the US?
First, gun ownership has been increasingly demonized, primarily by the types of people who believe the state should assume responsibility for the individual.
Second, in the 1980s, our mental health care infrastructure was drastically cut back, and this was followed by the introduction of crack cocaine. In the 1990s, meth started gaining in popularity.
So, the substantive changes have been in mental health care and a larger black market for drugs, with its accompanying (respective) erratic behaviors and violence.
Have the behaviors of lawful gun owners become somehow more outrageous? No. Have the violent crime rates for lawful gun owners gone up? Again, no.
Have more and more members of society tried to blame the actions of criminals on the rest of society? Yes. Have people tried to shift the paradigm from individual responsibility to societal responsibility? Yes, although only in the worst ways imaginable - IE by chipping away at the individual's ability to deal with issues (Spank your child? That's ABUSE!!! Carry a gun? That's why we have police!!!) while failing to hold agencies that have theoretically assumed those responsibilities accountable when they fail to provide acceptable levels of service.
So, now we have antis blaming gun owners for the actions of people who should either be in treatment programs or in jail, while society fails to hold the actual criminals fully accountable for their actions.
As I said earlier, I have a very good safe, and I use it. I have lockboxes for when I travel (for my suitcase, plus a vault in my vehicle). I recommend that others do the same.
But if a gun owner does not, and a burglar takes his gun, I don't blame the gun owner. I blame the burglar, and I blame the society that tries to shift the blame from where it should fall.
He's not talking about any kind of civil liability. If your guns are put away (not locked necessarily) your liability is nil in the eyes of the law. But a criminal who breaks into your house and steals your guns because they weren't locked up is now an armed criminal...because you decided you were within the law. Personally, I don't want that on my conscience. I would be devastated if I ever learned a gun I didn't do everything I could to secure was stolen and used in a murder. That's enough reason for me.
^^All of this. ^^
I get discouraged when I hear about gun owners leaving unsecured guns in locations, especially in family situations. There are other options for accessing them when needed than leaving them in unsecured well intended places. Our whole predicament right now over proposed gun control this year is highlighted because of a son who stole his moms guns. Considering these consequences we have the responsibility to create our own solutions or the anti's will find one for us. If the mindset of the gun owners had as much to do with proper security as simply owning and shooting a gun it could help.... I have always felt that if you can afford a gun, you can afford to secure the gun and you have the responsibility to control that security.
armoredman
New member
My Dad had a beautiful glass front display cabinet, with a key lock that had just enough strength to resist a toddler...with one hand tied back...
That was considered enough back then.
Now it's different, and the above posts about the deliberate demonizing of gun owners is the reason. I have a safe, a darn good one that I don't regret a single penny of the large sum it cost, but that was my personal decision, living in a neighborhood not considered the best by any stretch of the imagination, and not too far from the Drug Corridor the feds gave to the cartels.
I encourage anyone who can afford it to buy a safe, but if they can't, then I also agree - any theft of property is not the owners fault, but the fault of the criminal, otherwise it would not be a criminal act.
To follow the logic to it's illogical extreme, (as government is ever wont to do), all gasoline, rat poison, fertilizer, alcohol, prescription medications, bleach or any other substance that can be misused to cause death or serious bodily injury must be locked away tightly, lest we be sued by those who violate the law.
That was considered enough back then.
Now it's different, and the above posts about the deliberate demonizing of gun owners is the reason. I have a safe, a darn good one that I don't regret a single penny of the large sum it cost, but that was my personal decision, living in a neighborhood not considered the best by any stretch of the imagination, and not too far from the Drug Corridor the feds gave to the cartels.
I encourage anyone who can afford it to buy a safe, but if they can't, then I also agree - any theft of property is not the owners fault, but the fault of the criminal, otherwise it would not be a criminal act.
To follow the logic to it's illogical extreme, (as government is ever wont to do), all gasoline, rat poison, fertilizer, alcohol, prescription medications, bleach or any other substance that can be misused to cause death or serious bodily injury must be locked away tightly, lest we be sued by those who violate the law.
Last edited:
SauerGrapes
New member
Well said!
This is very disturbing to me that unsecured firearms are left in people's houses when they are not home. The only weapon left out at any time is my carry gun.
Let's face it, this world is littered with a-holes looking for an easy buck. It's our responsibility to do everything we can to protect firearms from falling into the wrong hands.
The mother of that physco had no business leaving those firearms available for him to get his hands on. She paid for that mistake with her life.
Times have changed. It use to be people left their guns hanging on the wall or displayed in beautiful gun cabinets. Those days are long gone fellas.
David White
New member
I concur with the above statement.
Pond James Pond
New member
Cars are not designed to kill. It is not their main purpose. Guns are.
Furthermore, if I'd left my car unlocked, i.e. not taken all the measures at my disposal to prevent its theft, and someone was subsequently killed in a high-speed collision, then yes, I would feel partly responsible.
I would have been able to do more, and it would have been easy to do it.
Pond, it does not matter what they were designed to do, does it? The issue is what could be done with it.
This does not only occur with guns. For example, those who own swimming pools are often required to build fences around their pools, to prevent trespassers from falling in and drowning.
Personally, I would like to see laws passed that specifically barred people (or their estates) from being allowed to even file a lawsuit for damages sustained during the claimant's (or the deceased's) commission of a crime.
I don't think swimming pool owners should have to build fortresses, nor do I think gun owners should be held responsible for the criminal actions of others.
Again, I recommend the use of safes and lockboxes. I recommend any number of things; I do not think they should be mandated, however.
Edit: Going back to the car analogy - when was the last time you saw a media uproar because somebody left his car keys on a wall hook near the door?
This does not only occur with guns. For example, those who own swimming pools are often required to build fences around their pools, to prevent trespassers from falling in and drowning.
Personally, I would like to see laws passed that specifically barred people (or their estates) from being allowed to even file a lawsuit for damages sustained during the claimant's (or the deceased's) commission of a crime.
I don't think swimming pool owners should have to build fortresses, nor do I think gun owners should be held responsible for the criminal actions of others.
Again, I recommend the use of safes and lockboxes. I recommend any number of things; I do not think they should be mandated, however.
Edit: Going back to the car analogy - when was the last time you saw a media uproar because somebody left his car keys on a wall hook near the door?
Pond James Pond
New member
Absolutely, it does.
What one does with an object is largely going to be by influenced what it is designed for.
If someone steals a car, they will likely either sell it or drive it.
Typically, that does not cause injury, death nor destruction
If someone steals a gun, they will likely either sell it (possibly to someone who does not want to go through normal channels) or use it.
Typically that does cause injury, death or destruction.
It seems fair to recognise that and act accordingly.
You and I are on the same page on this issue. We both condone the use of safes, as opposed leaving guns lying around.
Frankly, I don't yearn for legislation on this either. As it happens I am bound by law, but would lock them up even if I weren't.
I merely disagreed with the comparison of a car theft having the same potential for disaster as theft of gun.
However, the regrettable truth is that many people do not assume the responsibility and we are then all tarred with the same brush when the unthinkable happens.
Truth for me is that, if it did come down to legislation and I had to choose between compulsory safe installations and an AWB, I'd jump on the former...
I agree comparing guns to cars is a poor analogy, and that it does matter what they were designed to do. This is why there is never any "assault car ban" on cars (especially like sports cars), they are not designed to kill.
I would not put it past the gun control community to introduce laws charging liability to gun owners if their stolen guns are used in crimes. Lets face it, there is a problem with criminals gaining access to guns... there is a responsibility to make an effort to keep our guns safe from theft or our rights will continue to be whittled away with every future incident hows that for liability?
I would not put it past the gun control community to introduce laws charging liability to gun owners if their stolen guns are used in crimes. Lets face it, there is a problem with criminals gaining access to guns... there is a responsibility to make an effort to keep our guns safe from theft or our rights will continue to be whittled away with every future incident hows that for liability?