Comments about ‘Letter: Securing firearms’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 26 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

I strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment. I also strongly believe that gun owners should be responsible to secure their weapons. And most do.

But "stricter certifications" are not the answer to this problem.

I would propose that "gun owners should be held criminally responsible when their unsecured weapons are used to cause harm"

Someone breaks into their gun safe? No harm no foul. A 6 year old gets a loaded gun from the bedside table and someone dies? Gun owner = Negligent Homicide.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

I have an absolutely foolproof way to keep any child from accessing a gun in my home:

I don't keep a gun in my home.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

More children die from drowning than from firearm accidents. We would save more lives if we banned swimming pools, creeks, lakes and rivers!

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

I agree with Joe.
With the power comes the responsibility.
Nearly every accidental gun death could be prevented.

But, the NRA would fight this too, it has to be a free for all or it's not a right?

airnaut
Everett, 00

I am about as anti-gun as they come.
However, I own several guns myself.

I agree with
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC
1,000 %
"gun owners should be held criminally responsible when their unsecured weapons are used to cause harm"

I also take responsibility and keep them in a gun safe.

BTW --
I am not a hypocrite.
If anyone wants to know "Why" an antigun person has and keeps weapons,
it's becasue I an ex-Military.

And I do not trust the gun toting, vigilante, red-necks who think the mean old nasty Government is going to send tanks and aircraft in and take away their "Freedom".

It is also in case of natural disasters, or the proper authorities of my country [in the form of County Sheriff, Governor, or President] calls me to take up arms.

Most likely to restore law and order from the self-appointed, gun-toting, vigilante, red-necks who seek insurrection and over throw the Government.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

TB's 8:33 post is amazing to me. No, we can't cover or empty every body of water and, yes, accidental drownings will continue. But that's not the question here, because locking guns away from children isn't just smart, it's easy AND relatively cheap. Maybe TB has a good reason to oppose this, but he doesn't say what it is. I can't conceive of one. I have been posting the same thing for years - until they're "needed", keep your guns locked up!

AZFarmBoy
Goodyear, AZ

A few questions for Mr Dorius:

Specifically, what strict certifications would you suggest that would prevent these types of accidents? Some cities require that guns be locked away when they are not being carried. How would a law like this be enforced? Random home inspections? If it's not enforceable, how effective would it be?

JoeBlow's suggestion is at least enforceable, and does not restrict gun rights.

casual observer
Salt Lake City, UT

It's not that complex, really. With rights (gun ownership) come responsibilities (safe storage and use of firearms). They are inextricably linked and gun owners should realize that when you demonstrate your inability or unwillingness to meet your responsibilities, you lose your rights. Our laws should reflect that when one purchases a gun, for whatever purposes, they must accept the responsibility of owning a lethal weapon.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@AZFarmboy
Well, if your kid shoots somebody with your gun then the police investigate how they got it. If we went with JoeBlows law the first time a parent is charged with multiple counts of murder because their kid shot up a school it would make you think. I know that my gun is either on my person or locked up in my safe, specifically because I don't want my daughter near it.
@Airnaut
I find it telling that you, and many other former military men and women I know are the most vocal anti war and anti gun people. It's like you've seen exactly how much damage these things can do so your more opposed than the masses who've never experienced it.

Mtn Tracker
Ephraim, UT

Locking your guns away is not the only thing that should be done. Kids are curious by nature and love a good challenge. My parents couldn't hide or lock anything from me as a kid. I always found a way. Most of you know exactly what I mean. That being said, teach your kids about guns. Kill the curiosity not the kid. My own three kids have no desire to play with my guns. They've all held, handled, and shot them. They know what damage they can cause, and how dangerous they are. I keep them locked up especially at times when friends or family are over to play. The worst thing you can do is keep it hidden and tell them not to touch it. That's like showing candy and telling them they can't have any. Use common sense.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Mark B
Swimming pools can be and are covered. And supervision when young children are in lakes or rivers, or the ocean. Life vests. Should a supervisor of one of those who drown be held accountable for manslaughter if they weren't properly supervised?

AIRNAUT

Might be the most convoluted post I've ever read.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Mtn Tracker, my dad thought the same thing. I still sought them out, when left to my own devices.

Locking them up was the only deterrent.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The misuse of a right is punishable by law, e.g., Amendment 1 doesn't mean you can libel or slander people. A person who leaves a gun lying around for kids to shoot each other with is guilty of negligent homicide in my book. But the NRA will NEVER accede to such a law. That is my problem with the NRA.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

SCfan
My post has no suggestion as to who should or shouldn't be prosecuted, nor any suggestions for new laws, but can I at least presume that no one, including gun owners, wants preventable tragic violence?

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

Ok liberals, lets apply the same standards to all weapons that are typically used to kill.

Do we now need to increase punishments for any accident involving a knife? Imagine your teenager cuts themselves with a knife and needs stiches. You are now charged with attempted homicide for letting them use it.

Got that kid in little league. You better have a vault to store the bat in. We wouldn't want any harm coming from that.

Why do you want to disarm the populace? For a group of people that complain about privacy so much, you sure are adamant about being involved in what I do in my home.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

Good letter but nothing but talk on the commentator end. When you pass laws to make it easier for a 12 year old to own a weapon without the proper training then don't preach about responsibility. All owners should be competent, responsible and legal and most here have fought to have it otherwise.

FT
salt lake city, UT

Great letter, spot on. The NRA and some gun owners want to have their cake and eat it too. If you own a gun and don't secure it than you should be liable for the results. Personally, I choose to do the safest thing for my family and that is to not keep a firearm in the house. That's a fact supported by undeniable data. People who keep a firearm in the home are more likely to have one of their family become a victim of that weapon than they are to use it on an intruder.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Red, So, let me understand.

The letter was about securing firearms in the home. So, are you against that?

When knives and baseball bats become the go-to weapon of choice for homicide and suicide in the home, it may be necessary to address that. Until then, lets have adult conversations about real issues.

And to your over-the-top conclusion, very few people (yes, there are some crazies out there) want to "disarm the populace". But it is much easier to argue against against banning guns than responsible ownership.

And frankly, I could really care less what you do in your home. Until it affects others.

Do you take the same approach to alcohol and second hand smoke?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Requirements:
Military Personel - Back ground Check, annually Trained and Certified.
[personal weapons are banned on all military installations,
all issued weapons locked and secured in the ARMORY].

State and Local Police Force - Back ground Check, annually trained and cetrified.
[personal weapons are banned, all issued weapons locked and secured in the ARMORY].

Private Citizens?
None of the above.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Let me get this straight "anything goes" pro-gun people --

I leave alcohol out and children get hurt - I'm liable.
I leave poison out and children get hurt - I'm liable.
I leave sharp objects out and children get hurt - I'm liable.
I don't shovel the snow off my sidewalks and children get hurt - I'm liable.

I leave a gun out and children get hurt - I'm NOT liable?

Do you see "anything" wrong with that?
If not - am I truely feel sorry for you.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments