View Single Post
Old January 26, 2013, 11:16 PM   #61
Frank Ettin
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,745
Originally Posted by MLeake
Frank, please review my posts, and tell me where we disagree on "shoulds."...
First, I'm not going to debate whether or not there should be legal liability. The reality is that some places, under some circumstances, there will be. You might not think there ought to be, but that won't, by itself, change anything.

Second, without considering the possibility of legal liability, I consider it irresponsible for a gun owner not to secure his guns from unauthorized access, and to me that means locking up guns, except for a gun which you might have under your immediate control, on your person. And I'm really not interested in all the rationalizations for not doing so.

Third, if folks don't want an expansion of laws requiring safe storage or imposing liability for unauthorized access to unsecured guns, a good way to head those types of laws off is to voluntarily lock up any gun not under your immediate control on your person. Laws have a way of getting passed when enough of the body politic decides that other people aren't being responsible enough. That's why we have seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, using a cell phone while driving laws, laws prohibiting working on your car on your front lawn, etc. I'm not going to argue about whether those laws are good or rationally necessary. But when enough folks get annoyed enough or scared enough by what other people are doing, they have a way of electing politicians who will enact laws against their doing those things.
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Page generated in 0.05156 seconds with 7 queries